value and working for 50 years, deciding to find a job a lot of money you saved up in 401(k)s and other places. so supply-side tax reduction certainly counts. ..

about the last time around. >> your tax pledges between the representative. if there is a net increase would you say that is in violation of the pledge and are you worried about the words that you are hearing from speaker boehner? is he talking about a net tax increase or are we hearing that rahm? >> he's in favor of revenues that come from growth and needs to see serious spending restraint. i am in favor of revenues to come from economic growth. one of the numbers that doesn't get tossed around is cbo. the cbo says if you grew at 4% a year -- congressional budget office -- they do static modeling. they do a whole bunch of things that i think understate the case for how important growth is or

how you get growth, but if you grow 4% a year, reagan numbers instead of 2% a year, france, or obama's high point -- you do that for a decade, to present additional growth, 4% a year, not to present, the federal government lets $5 trillion more than it would have because more people are working. at this point, from the bottom of the recession, if obama's growth had been as strong as reagan's there would be 10 million more people would work and gdp would be 10% higher. that is the cost of the regulatory attack and the tax that obama did rather than the approach reagan took to read 10 million americans out of work because obama went his direction rather than reagan's direction, 10% smaller gdp. the guys that want more money from the pentagon should be focused on economic growth, not on trying to take a larger piece of the shrinking pie.

so i think the growth is the only way to get out from -- 4% a year instead of obama's reef for a decade and you wipe out obama's accumulated debt in the first term that he has run up in the debt. so i think there's some very important focuses on growth, and yeah when we see something in writing i'm not going to get involved in some hypothetical because every once in awhile i try to help somebody expand the hypothetical and then that gets turned into one more than i perhaps said were intended to say. but when something is written down -- the good news is you have it written down and you put it on line for seven days and of the press and the american people look. is this a tax increase? let's see, take a look at it. it's going to be there clearly a tax increase or not. problems in the 2011 budget or the tax increase.

easy. the 2010 budget deal. we have lots of deals and they will be on the phone wondering if it is a tax increase or not. usually people ask when they have a new theory about how to raise taxes and they think if they move fast enough that would be okay, wouldn't it? said it down, let's look at it, tax increase. >> actually talking about the net tax increase. >> obama once higher marginal tax rates to punish people who work on saturdays. i don't think he's going to get that. there's an interest on getting more revenue for growth so we can pay down some of his debt so we can pay some of the bills he has run up. that is going to be necessary. knott obama's $5 trillion. he did it. we are going to have to pay it rather do that through growth

than the higher taxes the but slow the economic growth. >> i would like to talk more about this dual mandate that you referred to and of the three quick propositions to see how they sort of come together. the first is coming and i've written this many times, presidential elections are referendums on the incumbent party and in that vein such as the case as i believe it is, then you have to say that it's a judge to by the electorate was not a tremendous perhaps lackluster but not so as to make him ineligible for rehiring. second, when the country is in a serious political deadlock of the kind that we are in now and it's happened in our history but it doesn't happen often it generally means that the deadlock is focused on a

definition question of america, and the definition question faced in this country is that we are going to go towards a european style of social democracy or more towards the traditional conservative populism of jackson or ronald reagan. third, when the country manages to deal with such a deadlock or change such a deadlock as this it doesn't come to any other means. so you have a lot of red and that may be a good harbinger for your party but it doesn't say anything about how the country is going to move forward in terms of what you promote. so given all of that if you buy any of it, to what extent do you see any way the next four years are going to be anything other

than a continuation of the last struggling kicking the can down the road not really dealing with the fundamental problems in america? >> three very good questions. i would say that obama's first term has two parts before and after the 2012 election just as the clinton administration was also to parts. i talk about the last six years when they took the house and the senate and forced the welfare reform and cut the capitol gains tax. they never talk about the first two years where growth and jobs were flat when the democrats read everything. so i'm all in favor of a last six years of the clinton administration, lower tax rate on capital gains republicans wanted more the beginning of spending restraints, and none of his spending policies to

fruition. and the two year set in obama's term the question is what is the third act. my guess is the third act looks a lot like 2011, 2012. we talk about the dual mandate. so eda 6% of the ads for personal attacks. romney gives people cancer. that kind of stuff. not morning in america not didn't i do a good job or here's my plan for the future here's my entitlement reform. the republicans actually voted for and vote for a real budget score by cbo twice with virtually every republican voting for it in the house. the house is the body that it actually went through and they did it more than once. so they made it clear where they were going. obama ran against romney because he was going to raise taxes.

so, the president won the mandate not to beat romney for the next four years because he gives people cancer and is a bad person and is mean to dogs. he didn't make the case for what he wants to do, he didn't spend time on that in either defending his record or making the case for the next four years would look like other than that he would be a bad person. the deadlock or gridlock is better than moving in the wrong direction. it's been a big direction the last years in the of administration. and we talk about presidential leadership. we are going to have a certain amount of gridlock on a bunch of issues because you make a list of things that obama wants and he's not for them and read is not for them but at the state level, you think taxing high income people doesn't affect economic growth. let's see we are having a little experiment on that it's called

california. it's called maryland coming and i don't see any reason why we don't wait two years to see whether how california is doing with their new higher marginal tax rates on folks and sales taxes on middle-income people as well and sales taxes and maryland raising the tax on guys that made a million come to madrid 50, and they are down to under 50 tax in maryland because they can't leave. they make a million dollars and they can walk across the border. so, we are seeing some very -- people are testing obama's peery in the state and i think we should do it on a small state like vermont at first and see how it works. whereas texas and florida are giving an idea of how you can govern without an income tax. people moved. we kind of know what is going to

happen here. indiana, illinois, big border. they just past the right to work and they're giving the school kids a choice of a falter scholarship. illinois raised taxes want to inform the government worker pension system. who is going to build a factory in the 100 miles on the western side of the border? any takers for the people that think jobs and opportunities are going to move into illinois or not? what if we know something isn't going to work? do we impose it nationally when we watch it fail at the state level? not all are heading to warmer climates but states with no income tax or lower taxes and less spending. less government services.

people move to the states with fewer government services. really? then why do we pretended that is what people want as opposed to what the unionized bureaucracies in the state government says it wants. we also see the tests on louisiana and in the and i have a half a million people, 100,000 in arizona and the democrats have been claiming if you let people have school choice something awful will happen. we can see how well it works. where will the presidential leadership come from? we have a problem this time around we had ten people running for president some of whom were auditioning for radio talk-show host and marriage counseling. only a subset of the ten were actually running for president of the united states and all of these lovely governors that we had doing back flips and maps

chris christie started doing things when i was time to pull the trigger on running. for years from now you could fill a room with seven successful republican governors who could govern who could answer questions without shooting themselves in the foot, and romney is the governor of massachusetts. it's not like the rest of the country. with 80% democrat you are sitting there and there is a goal he stopped a lot of the shots and he did amazing things on defense but you couldn't sing to govern the the state. it's not reasonable because of the way that it was structured, so it was a difficult case to make and romney didn't do it.

>> the one thing talked about today is controlling or shrinking the size of government. just talk about taxes. the objective of holding the line or lowering taxes is ultimately supposed to contain or reduce the size of the government. do you feel closer or further from that goal today? >> much closer. one is the tea party and the other is the right and budget. up until the tea party, i would have been here and told you obama is going to spend too much money and you can't get the american people upset about spending too much. you have to wait until it becomes a tax increase that's why the protection pledge was i think the best defense against the government. the same misreading of his mandate that he's doing now so when some of us suggested the

misreading of the mandate he did it for years ago. he threw away the approval rating to spend the stimulus package written on all this other stuff, massive debt and spending and you had a million people go to the streets around august, april 15th. he had only just showed up and started spending crazily. tarp ii me and you then have a reaction from the movement that reacted in 2010. people lost the elections over spending too much. okay. the first by half to get whacked was arlen specter of pennsylvania. i was working with him to get in the elected and on the labour union demand not wanting to have elections to have power. he was going to fend off the right of center primary and be able to govern and get reelected

and then obama said if you vote for the stimulus instead of philadelphia and we can probably do some things to be helpful in pennsylvania and he said i just want a free election. when the primary. i'm going to sign on the stimulus. obama is going to stay out of get out the vote against me and people will be happy i brought somebody in pennsylvania and within two months he was unelectable on the spending issue. so the pig and the python that came in 2010 got reelected with spending shouting and a ringing in their years. there could be focused on spending the reagan tax is got it, regulations got, and then spending in general, but as the vote moving issue, it was.

and then i'm sorry if you thought i wasn't talking about it, i consider a plan to be all about spending, the entitlement reform that brings spending down to 16% of gdp. the same time period takes 38 come have the size of government with the plan versus the obama plan to bid i think eventually blows up and they can't calculate that level of debt and what it would do in the country so it's all about reforming entitlements and a smaller percentage of gdp rather than the larger percent of gdp and the tax part, the territorial system gives you stronger economic growth. so i think the moderate republican party which has now been field tested and our veterans defending entitlement reform talking about it and having people to beat them on

that with trick questions on the subject is infinitely stronger than the republican party four years ago or six years ago on the spending issue. every crisis bush had he spent money on. he never saw the crisis and said let's spend less. every crisis with a bigger government. >> i'm sorry but i do not see this as an endorsement of the tea party or the ryan plan. can you tell me why did obama when? >> two things. one, he dropped 8 million votes on the time before. the margin he got was shrinking. he ran a better campaign and we had a candidate that had started with the fact he introduced obamacare in massachusetts and pushed it. a little hard to be the candidate when you have that happening. because it was massachusetts where he was governor he didn't have the kind of record that mitch daniels would have for

bobby jindal or rick scott or rick perry and any of these guys that can say here's what i did in my stead with the republican legislature we were doing interesting things, tort reform, those sort of things. romney had none of that in his background. actually the had the iran were used to raise taxes and they said something the press didn't focus on although we send it out as a press release. and that was in 2008. romney said i will never raise your taxes if you're not less than two and $50,000 a year. no tax increase. there was the commitment in 2008. he started to repeat the verbatim again and again and again. my plan is if you're in less than two did $50,000 to write to

changes that didn't get talked about on cbs or nbc or any of the networks is he just announced the tax tomorrow and not have broken his word on the energy tax rate in the middle class they could raise income taxes on people a year from now which is why what he wanted to do is kick out the tax rates for people that are less than 250 for a year. he can't get -- and this is where you talk about the dual mandate. we are talking about marginal tax rates on higher income people and successful small businesses. that raises 400 billion on the taxes in addition to the rate increases that he wants to include. another 400 billion over a decade. as we have over 800 billion that he plans to raise for the higher income people if he gets that

tax hike he raises 8 trillion in debt over the next decade. so how we solve less than 10% of the problem. he then comes back and says who is going to pay the 8 trillion. that's the energy tax which of course. people have been trying to subpoena this information they don't want to share with anyone because it's relevant. carbon atom carbon copies when they send these e-mails. no, they are planning on the energy tax to turn into the modern you cannot turn the united states into a european social welfare system with the income tax. it can't be done. the rates have to be too high, people won't pay at, and you have all the problems carter had with the same challenges. the double taxing savings and

investments and business income just gets to be too heavy a burden. so you have to have that. every major country introduces so we are now looking at the entry point for the vat is an energy tax and when asked about it the obama people say well if the republicans were to recommend it, we would be all over it. a guy that promised he wouldn't raise taxes if somebody else touches the murder weapon first, he would be right there. he's not -- he is for the middle class, he just wants republican fingerprints on the process. so either we win or lose this fight about his tax increases on a handful of people. that's not the target. that's not any fun. you can't turn into france that way. that is what the second term is all about. and the sooner that we get past the stupid pretend we are going to raise taxes on a handful of

people and we've still got 8 trillion in additional debt running up over the decade. we have to fix that, don't we? and you know who the target is for that. >> the exit poll shows in their view 60% of the voting public was in favor of increasing marginal tax rates every top 2%. why are they wrong? the other question is the phrase was used if republicans are talking about the tax increases actually republicans are talking about tax increases, republicans don't call them revenue increases as far as the deal other than the marginal tax rates. i would raise this the savitt members that have talked about

it or something very much like. tom coburn, john mccain. so what's going on here. they expanded not violated pledge. >> the exception to taking this seriously because the vast majority of whom are not going to be subjected to this tax and they are being told that somebody else would have to wait. and if you discover in the process that only 60% of the borders are in favor of that, i think it speaks for itself and

very well of the american people. if you have a public opinion poll where the rule would be asked how do you feel if we cut all of your taxes and those would give your children free tuition except we have to have a referendum should not be a part of the serious conversation. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> the exit poll that was done asked several questions and if you cut and paste some of their you get the 60% but the question that was interesting is that people in the press who come up with a 60% number and an actual question which was should you raise taxes to reduce the debt which is a question that is on

the table 63% said no. but you can also look at the history of questions going when they have the same questions raised on the discussion over the debt ceiling increase. if we raise taxes on the rich do you believe that will in debt and tax the middle class 75% if we raise taxes in this budget deal did you think they would spend the money 63% said yes. if there were uniforms what kind would you like answers from voters but if you ask the second question if they raise taxes to you think they will just spend it? if they say they are going to raise taxes on the rich do they think they are really coming after you? yes, they do. so the argument and the people ask well, how come california had an initiative to raise the tax on cigarettes and 8% of people in california, the only

state that smokes cigarettes less is utah and they have a rule against them. in california it got voted down which i thought was fairly interesting. you give me corker, mccain and coburn and the modern republican party neither of those are considered top four leaders on economic issues. corker just got free elective promising people he would never do this. >> he was walking into the gang of six negotiations, and i talked to him on the phone and i sent him a letter and i said here is the history of 82 and walking down an alley with some and some say three people that wouldn't end well.

>> it was a letter to me that it was an open letter to the public. wade it clear -- we made it clear in the conversation he kept saying i don't leader. i don't think that these will let us have spending restraint unless you give him a tax increase. he was wrong and everybody else was right. he actually had to walk out of the negotiations because when he sat there with durbin he said i'm not really for tax increases i'm just putting tax increases on the table, and he's giving me all these spending cuts and i haven't agreed to anything. i just talk about tax increases. and i said a senator, do you think it is possible but he goes back to the democratic caucus and says i'm putting these imaginary spending cuts on the table and he didn't know these

tax increases and tom coburn said he would never be that dishonest. i think he is and i think you are not. i think he takes you seriously and you should not take him seriously. but again, they spend more than a year putting the simpson-bowles which of you haven't seen it is a slide presentation outline, the only numbers are in the page numbers. it's a series of interesting things. the tax burden is to go up from 18.5% and full employment to 21. that is a 5 trillion-dollar tax increase over a decade. the opening bid, plus and a trillion dollars of the tax increases from eliminating and reducing deductions and exemptions and so on, and he sees that in addition to the

thoughts. now, i don't read that in the essay that is simpson-bowles, but he was in the discussions and i wasn't, so it's either a 5 trillion-dollar tax increase with a billion specified and the rest not and the 6 trillion-dollar deficit with the goal set up plus the one, 6 trillion-dollar tax increase or five particularly since the spending cuts have been agreed to by the democrats and obama included. he knows he is and for that and then the republicans offer to put them into subsequent savings from the budget control act. when they spent nine months discussion from simpson-bowles which is a tax increase and

hints that the tax reform and its spending reform and when we finally went into the room to see what they came up with they didn't have legislative language that should have taken two weeks but they didn't have anything. they didn't have anything in nine months. why? because it isn't real. people say this imaginary agreement that isn't written down over the massive tax increase and the spending, simpson-bowles is a distraction from the fact that the two parties fundamentally disagree on the country, and this is where we have people who tell you why don't we have the good old days of bipartisan compromise telling you how old they are? because they are old enough to remember 30 years ago when the parties didn't mean anything in

terms of being right or left. >> in a more dignified way what looks like erosion in the ranks in the state. >> you are mistaken but all through 2010 and 2011 there were highlights in the papers that the republicans were out to raise taxes and the budget to fall apart is the 27th time this assertion has been made in the last couple of years. and if you look at it, the entire republican leadership has been elected on that commitment, the entire in the house and the senate and the people that sometimes have conversations you look at lindsey graham who would say -- and i talked to him and he said of the democrats gave us a significant 10-1 entitlement reform, i could even though it promised people in south dakota, south carolina that i wouldn't, vote for a tax increase to get this fundamental entitlement

reform you haven't met a democrat willing to do that? nobody is elected. senator, you are offering a tax increase in return for a golden unicorn that doesn't exist. he said the anything that isn't entitlement reform isn't baked into the que. he's very dismissive of other people that left after promises of the tax cuts. he's going to be having a much tougher deal. so i don't think that this is a -- the commitment by the party in the house and the senate is to reduce spending, not raise taxes although one can get a congressman or senator to take about a hypothetical. i usually call them after it's been in the paper and said did you mean to endorse that? no. so the discussions with corker as well. i don't think that they will offer anything on spending that

would even tempt someone to break their commitment to their constituents. >> a lot of what we are hearing as you know we have huge problems. we have a trillion dollar deficit, two-thirds of dodd-frank hasn't been written, etc., etc.. i haven't heard any solutions i think you are right you what to publish online. i think the transparency is great. but we have a real situation. this fiscal cliff especially when added to what's happening. what can be done positively to

get in the deadlock where you stand up the taxes. >> yes we have a huge problem. a 5 trillion-dollar debt. >> we keep talking about the fiscal recovery being different. you go back into the century and they all recouped a lot faster than this one. obama and hoover both reacted in the same way to the recession which was more spending, higher taxes and regulations and obama and hoover and fdr who never did anything. i think there's a very serious damage done to the economy and to the world economy and the approaches bush took running up

to this and that obama is put on steroids. this is in the middle of many problems to continue to not be ended. and the was a very big problem. to be much more serious about spending and it was in that way before. >> how do you fix? >> the house republicans already passed the budget that would work and pass the extension of the tax cuts they would work and you go in and have these conversations in front of the american people without about how romney is mean to dogs and causes cancer and actually talking about issues. and i think that is a debate that we need to have. we haven't had it, certainly didn't have it in this last election and we can have it now.

it's very helpful. i think at the end of the day we will make the right decision partially because the democrats are terrified of the damage that obama has to drive them over and they wouldn't actually do that as obama threatened to throw us off a cliff year ago in august and didn't. >> we weren't going to get the negotiations required to sail off of the fiscal cliff. >> there's the tax hike romney's question i consider them very different projects. obama is trying to put them together. the same way he wants you to -- what i hear is that one or all of them will be sailing off

january 1st and the quit jumping medicare because they get 30% less i believe the member is the payroll taxes go up which weeks all the people of that have never heard of the sequester. i am having a very difficult time visualizing with what february looks like when the press gets a hold of this and then all of a sudden we also have the debt limit. i just can't see what we are going to do. >> the debt limit is an additional tool to explain to obama that he isn't the king and like henry viii you have to go to the parliament for money. he might want to nationalize monastery's but i don't think he can get as much these days as back then with that approach so he has to go to the parliament, has to go to congress for the

resources for the debt ceiling, for all of these things. and look it will dawn on them that this is not to the king or the duke. he is one of the guys in the constitutional government has very limited power. once you get on the phone with other people that have been present in the second terms and ask clinton what he got accomplished in the second term that didn't include assigning the republican legislation. so, it's going to be difficult, but i think at the end of the day, obama will not be selfish and will keep the country's interest at heart and he has to recognize the damage on the spending and taxes and regulations. we are about to hit all of the bits of obamacare. the past 3,000 pages. there's a reason they didn't pass it in 12 pieces. if i was running a bill i thought was popular as the republicans did their flame and arrows tax cut with the popular ideas let's cut the tax and

capital gains tax different pieces of legislation one every week he wanted people to watch it that's not how they did obamacare. they fumbled the ball up because they thought there were 12 wonderful pieces and it. the past two things they were proud of and that made them happen immediately. this is the pre-existing conditions and 26-year-olds can stay on mom and dad's insurance. the rest of it is a series of tax increases and taking away your ability to have your health care as you understood it prior to this everything you're told to work. it's a very unpleasant set of surprises for the american people about obamacare. this isn't the only be part of the road. a of the massive problems. there's a lot of damage to this economy that is yet to be done and that's why i would argue that when we look at this fight,

30 read states doing better than 14 blue states, and of the voices out there there are a lot of different approaches people are taking including on how they handle obamacare. >> thank you very much and for what i think was a recommendation for everyone but it seems that your position was quite clear and they seem well understood. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> yesterday the federal share ben bernanke spoke about the need for the white house and congress to reach agreements to avoid the impending fiscal cliff. speaking of the economic club of new york come here is a part of

what he had to say. >> so what are these looming challenge as? >> first, the congress and the administration need to protect the economy from the full brunt of the severe fiscal tightening of the beginning of next year that is built into the current law, the so-called fiscal clef. the automatic tax increases and spending cuts that make up the fiscal cliff absent of offsetting changes proposes a substantial threat to the recovery. indeed by the reckoning of the congressional budget office, the cbo, and that of many outside observers, a fiscal shock of that size would send the economy toppling back into the recession. second, early in the new year it will be necessary to improve and increase in the federal and debt limit to avoid any possibility of a catastrophic default on the nation's treasury securities and other obligations. as you recall the threat of

default in the summer of 2011 fueled the economic uncertainty even though an agreement was ultimately reached. the failure to reach an agreement this time around can impose an even heavier economic and financial cost. as the fiscal policy makers face these decisions with the two objectives in mind, first as i think it is widely appreciated by now, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path. the budget deficit which peaked at about 10% of gdp in 2009 and stands about 10% of gdp is expected to narrow further in the coming years in the economy continues to recover however the cbo projects and the apostles of the policy assumptions the budget deficit would still be greater than 4% of gdp in 2018 assuming that the economy has returned to its potential by then. moreover under the cbo

projection, the deficit and the ratio of the federal debt to gdp would return to an upward trend. of course we should all understand that long-term projections of ever-increasing deficits will never actually come to pass because the willingness of lenders to continue to fund the government can only be sustained by a responsible fiscal plans and actions. it's a credible framework for the policy on a stable have come for example, one in which the ratio of the federal debt to gdp stabilizes or declines is less urgently needed to ensure the longer-term economic growth and stability. even as fiscal policy makers address the urgent issue of the longer run fiscal sanity, they should not ignore the second key objective to avoid unnecessarily adding to the head winds that are already holding back the economic recovery. fortunately, these objectives are fully compatible and mutually reinforcing.

preventing a sudden and severe contraction in the fiscal policy early next year will support the transition of the economy back to full employment and the stronger economy will in turn reduce the deficit and contribute to achieving long-term fiscal stability. at the same time, the plan to put the federal budget on the path that would be sustainable in the long run would help keep longer term interest rates low and boost household and business confidence, thereby supporting economic growth today. coming together to find fiscal solutions will not be easy. but the stakes are high. uncertainty about how the fiscal cliff, the raising of the debt limit and the longer term situation will be addressed appears already to be affecting private spending and investment decisions and may be contributing to the increased caution in the financial markets with adverse effects on the economy. continuing to push the fiscal policy choices will only prolong

and intensify these uncertainties. moreover, the details of every agreement is reached to resolve the fiscal cliff are important the economic confidence of both market participants and the general public will also be influenced by the extent to which our political system proves able to deliver a reasonable solution with a minimum of uncertainty and delay. finding a long-term solutions that can win sufficient political support to be enacted me take some time. the meaningful progress towards this end can be achieved now if policy makers are willing to think creatively and work together and constructively. let me now turn briefly to the monetary policy. monetary policy can do little to reverse the effect of the financial crisis may have had on the economy's productive potential. however, it has been able to provide an important offset to the head winds that have slowed the recovery. as you know, the federal reserve

took strong measures during the financial crisis and the recession cutting its target for the federal funds rate the traditional tools mature policy to nearly zero by the end of 2008. since that time, we have provided additional accommodation for the unconventional policy tools aimed at putting downward pressure on the longer-term interest rates. asset purchases that reduced the supply of longer term securities outstanding in the markets and communication of the future path of policy. most recently after the september fomc meeting we announced in the federal reserve and purchase additional agency mortgage-backed securities and would continue a program to extend the maturity of the treasury holdings. these additional asset purchases put downward pressure on the interest rates and a broad financial conditions more accommodating. moreover the purchases by bringing down mortgage rates provides support directly to the housing and thereby helping to

mitigate some of the headwinds facing that sector and not in this decision we've indicated that we would continue purchasing the nds and undertake additional purchases of longer term securities and employee our other policy tools until the judge the outlook for the labor market has improved substantially in the context of the price stability. although it is early to reflect the most recent policy actions, the yields on the corporate bonds and the agency have fallen significantly on the balance since the fomc announcement. more generally, research suggests the previous asset purchases have eased the overall financial conditions and provided meaningful support to the economic recovery in the recent years. in addition to announcing the purchases of the nds at hours of timber meeting we extended our guidance for how long we expect that exceptionally low levels in the federal funds rate would be warranted at least through the middle of 2015.

bye pushing the expected period of the low rates into the future we are not saying that we expect the economy to remain weak into 2015. rather, we expect as we indicated in our september statement that a highly accommodative stance of the monitoring policy would remain appropriate for the considerable time after the economic recovery strikes. in other words, we want to be sure that the recovery is established before we begin to normalize the policy. we hope that such assurances will reduce uncertainty and reduce confidence among the households and businesses thereby providing additional support for economic job, economic growth and job creation. in sum, the u.s. economy continues to be tampering by the lingering effect of the financial crisis on its productive potential and by a number of headwind is that have hindered the normal cyclical adjustment of the economy. the federal reserve is doing its part by providing accommodative monetary policy to promote a stronger economic recovery in

the context of price stability. as i've said before, however, while the monetary policy can help support economic recovery it is by no means a panacea for our economic ills. currently uncertainty that the situation in europe and especially about the prospect for the federal fiscal policy seems to be weighing on the steady decision of households and businesses as well as on financial conditions. such uncertainties will only be increased by the discourse and delay. in contrast, cooperation and creativity deliver fiscal clarity in particular a plan for resolving the nation's longer-term budgetary issues without harming the recovery. to help meet the new year is very good one for the american economy. thank you very much. [applause] blank check

there are many people who might even take issue with grant saving the union during the civil war. didn't lincoln do that? welcome in this he did and i'm not going to say grant was the only person who saved the union. but he was the commanding general of the army that put a plank in's policy into effect. and he was the general but accepted the surrender of the army of northern virginia under robert e. lee that ended the war. so, if anybody won the war on the battlefield, if you could say that any one person did come

in and of course you can't, but one of the things we do in history is we generalize. we simplified because the history and reality is simply too complicated to get our heads are around if we deal with it and is full complexity. such a grant saved the union during the civil war. and i do contend that grand saved the union during the reconstruction as well. the name of this place still resonates with the shuddering in the hearts of the american people. wouldn't any of the name connected to the civil war except lincoln, gettysburg reverberates. americans retain the knowledge that what happens here was the

crux of our terrible national trial and even americans who were not so precisely what transpired on the fields know that all of the glory and all the tragedy that we associate with the symbol war recites most probably most indelibly here. up next former abc news reporter and anchor ted koppel talks of the state of television news and how news consumption in the internet has impacted quality reporting interviewed former reporters at harvard university professor marvin kalb. this is about one hour and 15 minutes. from the national press club in washington, d.c. this is the

kalb report with marvin kalb. [applause] >> hello and welcome to the national press club and to another edition of the report. i am marvin kalb and our subject tonight, the twilight of network news. a conversation with ted koppel about democracy and the press. i use the word twilight to suggest that network news as we have no net is on its way out and something new is the merging. whether what is new will set aside the urgent needs of our democracy cannot be noted this time let's hope that it will because without a free inquisitive occasionally rambunctious media, we will not be living in an open society. the free press and an open society are intimately linked one dependent on another. if the network news is in its

twilight than perhaps our democracy is facing a turning point as well. i've asked an old colleague and friend to help us understand the changes in the network news and what those changes might mean for our society. ted is known best for his 25 years as the anchor and host of nightline, but he's also been a foreign correspondent, a war correspondent, author, and he has covered many political campaigns. i share something with you now. in preparing for this program, i ran into the following interesting thought. ted joined abc news in 1963 could i joined cbs in 1957. if my arithmetic is right come together we represent more than 100 years of journalistic experience. that's enough to depress anybody. [laughter]

so, ted, what in god's name have we learned about our craft of journalism in all of these things? >> i think we have learned not to make predictions. >> i predict that your title, provocative as it may be, may be premature. i think that when americans finally realize how bad things are and what terrible straits our political system is in, i think that may be a resurgence of the kind of journalism that you and i grew up with. >> that is a marvelous very optimistic. >> actually it's a very terrible thought because it suggests the ship almost has to sink before people are willing to jump back into the lifeboats. >> but do you think that we can truly even define journalism?

if somebody walked into the room right now and said what are they talking about? journalism. explain it to that guy. >> i think the simplest way to explain it is to to get back to when you and i were young and what you and i began in this business and limited to the broadcast journalism if you wanted to be seen and heard on the national television you had to do it on atc, nbc or cbs. when i was in vietnam in the late 60's if i did a piece out in the field, it would be three days sometimes before it got on the air. it meant that you have prepared your story with more of a sense of context. you have prepared your stories

knowing that they had to survive. today's, three days, even more than that. i had nothing but respect, admiration and a little bit of sympathy for our colleagues who quite literally after we are thought almost around-the-clock. live and whether they are working for television and radio and newspaper to file for the blog they are going to have to tweet and ray facebook number. the only thing i've never seen in the schedules for which adequate time has been left. how they find the time to cover the material. they have the media available to

us today. more means of communicating with and have ever existed in the history of the world. we are so enchanted with our ability to be fast that i think we sometimes lost connection with what we are seeing and why. >> i want to pursue that. but i want to ask you first why did you even get into this business? >> i got into it for much the same reason that you did. what i'm going to say is it would have been terribly good on anything else. >> i was born and spent the first 13 years of my life in england my father listened to the bbc during world war ii. i was still a little tight in

those days but i still remember, and my memory may be playing tricks on me but i think i still remember hearing murrow's reports being broadcast on the bbc. and i swear that from the earliest childhood on all i ever wanted to do and be was a journalist. ..

three hours later, she came in and said i think you have other events today. but he used to get so absorbed in these things that i'd listened to him earlier, and then met him and i was completely bowled over. this was a great journalist, and he was really interested in the things that i was interested in. >> and if you look back at the man, i don't think he hired many women, did he? >> there were a couple of women were part of the world war ii contingency at cbs but they do not last after the war. >> but the point i was going to make them weather was an eric said right or a howard k. smith, the people that ed murrell hired for people of substance, historians. writers. leaders, people who cared about

history. and sometimes when i look at what passes for news on cable television, especially these days, i don't know where they find these people. [laughter] >> he cared a great deal about writing. one of the point you're making earlier about some things that you wanted to last for three, four, five days before it would actually get on the air, it had to be written, and written well. merl cared a great deal about style and the way in which you presented information. it was always for me -- >> interesting. and is going to interrupt you for a second. take a look at how awesome, when you're watching something being covered on cable television these days, and it requires great skill. i'm not denigrating it in any fashion, but notice how often was your hearing is just

whatever comes off the top of the head of a man or woman who is reporting. take note of how rare it is for a script actually to be written. now, you know, if you only have a couple of minutes to report something, there really is some skill required. i mean, the essence of journalism, after all, lies not simply in the reporting by separating come in the editing and in determining why one thing is important to a story and another is not. in putting it into some kind of context. occasionally even historical context. you know, folks are pretty good at ad leading, but that takes more skill than most people have. >> absolutely. and you've taken us from what was, and you raised a little bit on what is in journalism today.

what has changed? takeoff the major changes. >> since you and i began? >> yeah. >> well, first of all it is, the biggest change i always argued in about a 1960. now, 1968 you have to understand was an extraordinary gear. 1968 was the year of the tet offensive in vietnam. it was the year that lyndon johnson step down and said he would not run for president again. the year that martin luther king was assassinated. figure that bobby kennedy was assassinated. the year of the riots at the democratic convention in chicago. so it's not too surprising that we may not pay as much attention as we should to the birth of a new form of television news. television news magazine began in 1968, called as you know, "60 minutes." and "60 minutes" has done an

extraordinary job over these last 44 -- >> they have done amazing work. >> amazing work. but it also did something that no television program had ever done before. it made money. it turned a profit. and -- >> to be clear about that. up to that point -- >> if it happened it was rare. >> we were for the most part a lost leader. television news did not make money. >> tell folks what the famous, was it frank stanton, it was bill bailey, came to you folks who are producers and journalists at cbs and said, remember? >> he used to call us the jewels in his crown speak he also said don't worry about making money. >> that's right. don't you guys worry about that. and what that meant was that when went out to do a story, we

were totally absorbed in the story. we weren't worried about how much money it would take to cover the story. we just did it. even as late as 1980, i remember being able to charter a plane from rome to istanbul, because you thought you might be able to get an interview with somebody important. we didn't have to check with new york at all. >> but now, now we have become profit centers at the networks. you know, with the cable stations. being a prophet sent is a huge responsibility. because it means that you start thinking in a different way. you start thinking not so much about what the public ought to hear, but rather what the public wants to hear. you are now in competition with

the other networks, with the other news outlets. it's not just for audience but you're in competition with them to make money. and the way you make money is, i'll give you a for instance. i may be doing my former colleagues at abc and in justice, but i seem to recall that the last one hour documentary that played in prime time was on the subject of charlie sheen. and his carousing, womanizing, all the other good things that he was doing, which were clearly of enormous interest to all of you, because that's why they put on the air. it got a big audience. >> this idea, the difference between need to know and ought to know, spill that out a little? >> well, what you we about is making money, you try to focus on those things that are, a,

most likely to attract an audience, and b, please likely to cost a great deal of money. so the first thing you do, i remember many years ago getting a call from my old friend and colleague peter jennings. and peter said, ted, have the bean counters been in touch with you? and i said as a matter of fact, i just got off the phone with them. and what the bean counters wanted to know from him and from the was ted, how many times in a year does "nightline" use the moscow bureau? and they had asked peter jennings the same question, how may times a year does it use the moscow. it and asked the same thing of the anchor or the producer of 2020 and good morning america, and then they did a simple calculus. so the moscow bureau costs, let's say $2 million a year, and among all the abc programs it

was used, let's say, 50 times a year. 50 into 2 million, $40,000? wow. closed down the moscow bureau. and what happened with the moscow bureau at abc has happened, for the most part, at nbc, at cbs, at abc. most of the overseas bureaus now are essentially just a mail drops, where you may have some local employee keeping the office open. and when something really big happens in cairo, when something really big happens in mexico city, in beijing, in hong kong, what you do is you ship in one of the star correspondents, or even an anchor. but the difference between covering the news, year after year after year in a country, maybe even learning the language, certainly getting to know the people, getting to know

who the movers and shakers are, and what the political dynamic in that country is, that really is not happening much anymore. and parenthetically, what's happening in our business is also happening over in the intelligence field, at the cia. where quite literally -- >> i don't want to go too far there. we're -- i want to talk to you about the role of cable television. which you touched on before. in a recent interview with bill o'reilly of fox, you've derided ideological coverage of the news, bad for america, you said, making it difficult if not impossible for congress to reach across the aisle and find compromise. you also wrote an op-ed piece, this is not good for the republic. what do you mean? >> what i mean, and this goes

back, it's really a continuation of the same thing. i mean, first of all, in addition to demonstrating the network news divisions could make money, there was a technological explosion. wasn't just the three networks anymore. now you had cable. you have satellite television, the internet. so now there are quite literally hundreds, even thousands of competitors out there. what is incredibly cheap to put on the air is a couple of people like you and me just going at each other, right? talking. what draws an audience is when, in fact, we disagree. when, in fact, we get nasty with one another. and what rupert mourdock and robert ailes demonstrated 15 years ago is that there really was a hunger in america for something that was less liberal than what the networks were putting on the air. and so fox news was born, and

fox news has been hugely successful. earns somewhere between one and $1.5 billion a year. now, my current employers, folks over at nbc have their own cable network, msnbc. wasn't doing very well. wasn't making any money. and they took a look at what fox has done and they said, well, if they can make more a billion a half dollars a year doing use that excuse to the right, if we only make half of that, that's still $750 million a year, let's skew to the left. and so you have on cable television news that caters to people who consider themselves progressives, views that caters to people who consider themselves conservatives. you had afternoon radio talk shows, evening radio talk shows which caters largely to the conservative. you have the late-night comedy

shows, jon stewart, stephen colbert, belmar, that tend to cater more to the left. and the end result is that the area that has gone more or less fallible is serious news organizations reporting the important events of the day without any kind of political bias. we have grown up as a nation now, believing that we are entitled to your views that essentially resonate to the views we already hold. and the end result of that becomes, and we have seen it this year with a lot of distinguished senators, congresspeople, leaving because olympia snowe left the senate because she, she simply can't handle the nastiness anymore. and there's an awful lot of that, and you cannot any democracy --

>> you made the point. >> let me just finish this one line. you cannot any democracy expect people to be able to reach across the aisles and make the accommodations for important issues if they are terrified that in so doing they will expose themselves to the wrath of either the right or the left. either jon stewart's humor our rush limbaugh's sharp hung. spiff what you said not to longer was was the commercial success of both fox and msnbc has become a source of nonpartisan fatness for you. meaning what? >> meany, i mean you and i have known for many, many years that we operate in a business, but as we were saying a few minutes

ago, that business used to make all of its money with "i love lucy" and jack benny and 77 sunset strip and whatever was hot back in the '60s and '70s, made so much money on those programs that they could afford to spend 20, 30, 40, $50 million a year covering the world. that is no longer the case. and that's dangerous. >> you know, my sense every now and again, ted, is that though there are good journalists in cable television, the whole package of cable television, when it is presented to the american people, tends to dbase just about anything it touches. that doesn't mean that every conversation is bad but it does mean that the package to me comes through as, as a negative,

as something that makes fun of people, that is overly critical, that is not real. >> look, there's a program on sunday mornings called gps. first rate television journalism. he is a very smart man. he invites very smart people on this program, and they talk about important issues in a smart way. i doubt that he is 200,000 people watching that show. that's probably a fairly big audience if he gets that many. it's on a sunday morning, which is when programs like that still survive to one degree or another. but you're never going to see that program in prime time during the week. >> in your judgment since cable television is the place where

you going to get right, left political conversation and cnn living in the middle so awkwardly and trying desperately to keep its base, is it doing good things for our democracy come into the? >> no. of course, not. who? speak was the whole idea of cable television. >> no. spent i feel quite often that if you eliminate, and i since fox forward to occasional commentary, and cnn it would probably improve american democracy overnight. things would simply miraculous we get better. people would talk to one another again, rather than engage in an artificial fight which is what most of the cable television does. >> you take someone like rachel maddow, for example. spent very bright spent i was about to make a point a racial matter is a very smart women.

very smart. and could very easily in the old days, and should today, i would love to see rachel maddow as the anchor of one of the evening news programs on network television. but the price of that would be that she would have to keep her opinions to herself. it is her opinions that draw the viewership on msnbc. now, she's a very bright woman, as i said, but i don't want to know what she thinks about these issues. i really don't. i want to hear her informed reporting. i want to hear her interview people with that sharp mind of hers. i don't want to know where she comes down on a particular issue, but that is seen as hopelessly old-fashioned spent i was about to say, ted -- >> those days are over. spent as a medevac, excuse me, i just want to take a minute now to remind our radio and

television audiences that this is account report. i marvin kalb. our guest today is ted koppel. i would subject the twilight of network news. ted, you describe the good old days of journalism. i love this phrase, as an imperfect, untidy, little evening of journalism. you then went on to say that these days, broadcast news has been outflanked, overtaken by scores of other media options. help us understand the need, the perceived a need for these changes. because they not only affect the quality of network news, by the way, do you agree with me that it is in a twilight zone announce? >> it is in a twilight, but remember, twilight is usually followed by night and then don follows night. so i am still hopeful.

[laughter] i'm still hopeful. you know, it's not going to stay this way forever. i think, you know, what tends to happen in this country, marvin, as you and i have observed over the last 50 or 60 years, politically, we tend to go too far to the right, and then we correct course and we passed through the middle and then we go too far to the left. then we correct course again. i think what's happened to broadcast journalists, requires a course correction. and as we come to realize that our educational system is not as good as we like to believe, that our health care system is not as good as we like to believe, that we are spending, i mean, there are so many things that are on the brink of taking us into real disaster. not the least of them being, you

know, the possibility of cyber warfare. i mean, that's something that television is ought to be covering the time. i am tremendously concerned by the fact that the american public and its military have never been as far apart as they are right now. we know nothing. we do a terrific job of calling anyone in uniform a hero. we do a terrific job of welcoming them at airports, saying thank you for your service. we know nothing about what's going on in the military. and once more, the military and military operations these days are being launched on the basis of drone attacks, cia operatives, special operations forces out in the field, and all of that backed by civilian employees, civilian contractors. and we know next to nothing

about what is being done by any of these groups spent because the reporting is not being gunned? >> look, it's because we have found that eight, the american people won't stand for a draft, that b, the professional military was not enough to fight all over the world as we are now -- we've been focused on iraq. we've been focus on afghanistan. we actually believe that all the kids are coming back from afghanistan. i'll tell you here and now that's not going to happen. we will still have u.s. troops in afghanistan a year from now, two years from now, five years from now. where's the press? >> where is it the? >> well, obviously these are not issues that the people who run our news programs today -- >> why not? >> because they don't draw an obvious. what draws an odd it is charlie sheen. what draws an audience is people yelling at each other.

it's, you know, it's not enough to say these issues are important. we actually, i know it sounds totally idealistic, but when you and i became journalists, as young men, we actually believed that we were entering into really a special chosen profession that meant something to a democracy spent a calling. >> a calling, exactly. and when you got into it and when i got into it, i was tremendously fortunate and ended up making a lot of money later on. word of honor. i never thought i was going to get rich as a journalist. you didn't go into journalism, you don't go into journalism to become wealthy. >> the changes that we are talking about, you've already touched on this, the effect it

has honor society, on the business itself. on journalism itself, value systems change. i'm not saying that we can ever return to the good old days. that's gone. that's done. but what worries me is whether we can take the value systems of old and try to see them preserved in the digital environment of today. do you think that's possible? >> well, i not only think it's possible, i mean, you and i are in a sense, we need a third person here, half our age, telling us what is being accomplished in the digital arena. >> but what do you think is being accomplished? >> i think that there are people who are doing, what was the word i told you before?

we're both having a senior moment. win two things -- went to seniors at the same time have a senior moment is really bad. [laughter] what is the word i'm looking for? look at all the blog sites and -- >> curators. >> curators, thank you. >> i knew that. [laughter] >> well done. there are curators today who, because there's so many hundred, so many thousands of websites, make make a to point of saying look, if you really want to know what's good in the area, i mean what's interesting in the area of foreign policy, or let's say persian gulf, or let's say, the environment, or let's say cyber warfare, we can lead you in the right direction. and the technology is there so that you and i can gather material, gather information in a fashion that is infinitely

easier than the one we used to use 40 years ago, 50 years ago. we considered our laptop -- we can sit at our laptop right now and we can harvest information. >> where is the reporting? i mean, you did a ton of information. these curators can provide any amount of information, but how reliable is the information? is it based upon actual reporting? >> look, i think two key points have to be made. it, there is brilliant material out there that is being well reported according to standards that you and i would -- >> how did you know that? >> because i've been told. [laughter] on the other hand, the implication of your question is absolutely correct. we don't know often when something comes across on the internet, we have no way of knowing what the intention, what

their goals, what the biases of the people who are putting that out there, and i'll tell you something governed the other day from one of these ted talks. i don't know, has nothing to do with me. ted talks. and it was on the subject of google. and the speaker was making the point that he is what would be called a progressive. he said a friend of his who was very conservative, they took their respective laptops, their computers, and they simply typed into the search engine the word egypt. and they got totally different responses. why? because there is that process going on, every time that we search for something on our laptop, we are not only gather

information, we are getting information. we're getting information about what we buy, about what we find interesting, about what we like, about perhaps what our political biases may be, so that in theory a search engine that ought to be giving me objective information, and you and i ought to get the same information if we type in the same word, not so anymore. that's kind of scary. >> because somebody is making up his or her mind as to what it is that we want. >> it's not somebody. it is, it is a series of zeros and ones. it's a series of, it is the computer, what is the word i'm looking for? [laughter] algorithm, thank you. [laughter] it is the algorithm which is -- >> algorithm is defined, understand it exists, and i respected and i will salute it.

it so there. but i want to know what all of that has to do with journalism? who gets up in the morning and covers something? who's going to go out and cover it workers who is going to go out and cover a campaign? without the journalists being there doing the abcs of information gathering, honest information gathering, all of this other stuff is a lonely today. >> i mean, look, there are plenty of people are going to be after doing the gathering, but the keyboard -- >> in fact, let me interrupt. that's not to be in the coverage of war today, there are fewer reporters covering the war in afghanistan now than there's ever been. fewer. when you went and in the iraq were -- >> fewer american reporters spent american and others as well. >> well look, i frequently of an evening now we'll watch the bbc,

or al-jazeera because particularly when things are going on in the middle east, i'm going to learn more from the folks out there who actually speak arabic and know the area, know the region and -- >> but do we know that they are reporters? we know they speak arabic. >> we know that they are reporters. do we know that they are objective reporters? that's a different question. >> do we know that? >> we don't. but the fact of the matter is we've almost given up on objective reporters of their own country. >> that's my question. >> it is still possible, it is still possible, and you and i do everyday, to pick up "the new york times," to listen to npr, to pick up the "wall street journal," to watch the news our. the outlets are there. we have to look, out old friend jim lehrer used to stay with the program that bears to be tilted and i was said to jim go sometimes my friend, i think you're a little too daring. [laughter]

>> but it's there. there is still good journalism been committed. that good journalists can't help it if the public, in droves, seems to be moving in other directions. i'm simply making the point, and i don't know whether i am wishing for this to happen because as i say, i think it will only happen when people realize how devastating the consequences are. of not having a objective journalists out there. >> do you know clark kent? >> no, him well. we have on occasion used the same phone booth. [laughter] >> clark kent is no longer a reporter for the daily planet. >> what does he do not? >> he's a blogger. >> o. spent if you pickup -- >> where does he change? [laughter]

>> probably in the curators a kitchen. [laughter] someplace like that. but that is an indication to me of how profoundly different the journalism of years ago to today. i'm not saying that there isn't journalism. i'm saying that it's so much more difficult to find. and it's the areas that you will go out to try to find it are not terribly reliable. and i'd like to think about sort of a north star of journalism today. when you started, you have somebody like rubin are at abc who did extraordinary things at that network, including starting "nightline." i may, with me it was an admiral and a lot of other people at cbs, but who are the trend is up today in today's world? >> look, the fact of the matter is when he came on, he had been

the president of abc sports. and we at abc news were terrified of this guy who came in wearing his jungle suit and his red, and, his golden bracelets that he wore. and he was not one of the champions of what, of great journalism when he came on. he became that. he evolves and he involved in some large measure because he ran up against a movable objects like howard k. smith and frank reynolds, and people who still believe that good journalism was important. and nobody -- >> he recognize the good journalism and moved towards it.

>> well, he recognized it before, i'll tell you the back story of "nightline." for about a year before the iran hostage crisis, he came to us in the news area and said in time of any major importance happens, i will do a late-night special honor. 1130 time i come 10 minutes, 50 minutes, i don't care. he was drunk on the initial work to get a one hour newscast on at the dinner hour at 630 time it. the affiliate stations around the country would not go along. so he decided that he's going to seize that time period. and by the time we got to the iran hostage crisis, after about the fifth day, the 60, the sympathetic and we were running out of things to say. we were running out of things to report. and he said to us, i don't care. tell me what the difference is between a sunni and shiite. tell me about the shaw and how he came to power. tell me, i don't care what.

he kept that program going. because he recognized that there was a tremendous american appetite for this story. had it not been for that appetite, "nightline" would never have been born. >> and also, you at abc which did not have a very important program in that timeslot. >> that's correct. >> didn't have the night show or the letterman show, something like that. >> one of the things that is change in all this, when "nightline" began in march 1980, you had, you didn't have the letterman show yet on cbs. they would rerun some old cop drama, but among the three programs, the tonight show, the cop drama and "nightline," we had 70% of all the homes watching television at 11:30 p.m.

70%. these days, the tonight show, "nightline," and the letterman show are likely to have 25%. that's what's happened because what you didn't have 35 years ago was cable, satellite, you know, the internet. and all of those things have diluted the importance and the reach of the network. >> so maybe twilight is too soft a word? [laughter] >> no. because you still have, even though it's only 25%, the evening newscasts, for example. among the three of them i suspect they still have between 15 and 20 million viewers every night. >> more than that. 20-25 million. >> when you and i were reporting from the state department, it was 40 million, 50 million. i mean, i think cronkhite alone

probably had about 20 million people. >> every night. that certainly is true. the responsibilities of journalism to democracy and to our society, i want you to talk about that a little more. i want you to explain to me why there is this connection between the flow of news and a vibrant society. >> look, if the american public, the voting public, is ignorant of the issues, is uninformed, how can it make intelligent decisions about whom to pick? it's bad enough that the citizens united decision of the

supreme court has now resulted in, i think the new york times the other day said that the amount of money that was spent on all the election campaigns, all of them, $6 billion. now, i was shocked by that. i moderated a discussion the other morning and when karl rove and james carville, and -- >> how lucky can one guy be? [laughter] >> it was actually, it was fascinating, but mr. rove made a point that we spent infinitely more than that on dog food. >> that's absurd. >> yesterday as. it is. because much as i have always loved our pets and love pets in general, the fact of the matter is, if our elections end of it being reduced to the snarling and shouting and innuendo, you know, people keep saying well,

things were much worse in jefferson's time. yes, they were, but you only had broadsheets that were being distributed you didn't have everyone walking around with his or her own little communications device. information now is spread so ubiquitously, it is spread so quickly, so instantaneously that if we don't have reliable, trustworthy, objective sources of information, then our whole electoral structure is going to collapse of its own weight. >> you know, ted, there was that cnn story during that awful hurricane sandy week about how the new york stock exchange was under three feet of water, of course it wasn't true. it wasn't true at all. cnn got that story now from one of its reporters. cnn got the story from an online

message board on the national weather service's website. so they got a line, three feet of water, new york stock, and they put it out. i want to take on cnn because it could've been done by somebody else, too. but that to me is one of the dangers in trying to retain a best standards, some practice, someplace where you can turn and say this is the right way of doing things, and this is simply wrong. and they have the impression these days despite all of the good things that you have said about all the curators and whatever, all that stuff being said, i am left with an uneasy feeling, that i don't know where all the information is coming

from. i don't have a feeling that, remember years ago when we knew every cameraman who was taking pictures of some big event in cairo? we knew exactly, joe with cbs was taking the picture, and you knew that it was an objective look at what was happening at that time. i don't have any feel for that at all today. i don't know who's taking the pictures. i don't know that there isn't working for a network. they may be working for some small outfit, hired by the networks because the network doesn't want to bring a its own cameraman who will take too much spent a couple of points. number one, notice the number of times if you watch more than one newscast in the evening, notice the number of times that you see precisely the same video on all three networks. when it comes from overseas. in large measure because the networks don't have their own reporters, don't have their own camera people over there anymore, and they have bought it

all from the same signal source. point number two, what is wrong, after all, with having a local reporter covering the event, the local reporter after all speaks to lynch him from now's the people you're let's say that local reporter is reporting from tehran, and that local reporter knows that if he or she makes a misstep in what he or she reports, they will be arrested. they will be thrown in jail. the american reporter may get thrown out of the country but that's probably the worst thing that's going to happen. and, finally, come i find that there's absolutely no willingness on the part of our critics to believe that objectivity in journalism is possible. and i keep hearing that, there's no such thing as objectivity, to which i say, when you go to hire a lawyer, do you ask that

lawyer, tell me, do you like me? i mean, do you really, really like the? because if you don't like me, and i couldn't be able to put chart in this. you expect a letter to act as a professional. when you go to see a doctor, you are not asking that doctor what his or her politics are. you simply want that doctor to deal with you on the basis of her best professional expertise. and whether or not our critics want to believe it, i argued, and i think you will agree with it, that there really was a time, and there really remain in this country today, men and women who can be professional journalists, and capable of objectivity. that doesn't mean that they don't go home at night and railed against the darkness. it doesn't mean that they don't have favorites in an election, but it does mean that, i mean,

to this day, you've known my wife for many, many years. grace and doesn't know how i vote in an election. >> really speak as i don't tell you. i don't think it's appropriate. >> wow. and you are still married. [laughter] >> let me put it this way. she knows everything else about me. i think she can figure it out. but i've never told her. >> that's so interesting. what does that, what does that say, what does that really indicate? >> it indicates, you know, i had believes simpson is a very young reporter that my personal opinions have no place in the reporting that i do. >> but when you talk to somebody like bill o'reilly, for example, it was my student many years ago, i should have flunked him -- [laughter] bill believes profoundly, deeply

that you are a biased guy. you are of the left. why? because you work at abc. i would say to him you haven't a clue as to how i vote. he says of course i know. everybody knows. and that attitude has been accepted as a kind of truth. >> that's what i'm saying. >> by so many people. >> absolutely. and until we are prepared to accept the principle that objectivity, or at least a genuine effort toward objectivity in journalism is possible, we are going to be, you know, the late great daniel patrick moynihan used to say everyone is entitled to his own opinion. not entitled to his own facts. these days we have turned that on its head.

these days we believe that everyone is indeed entitled to his own facts. you want right winfax? we've got to factor for you. you want a left wing facts? we've got the plateau put it out for your. >> so how can we make it clear to people that if they watch, for example, "nbc nightly news," cbs evening news, "world news tonight," there is a basic impulse there on the part of the anchor and the reporters to tell it straight. but cable is where you're getting the opinion. cables says you're getting opinion also on the networks. so everybody is running around in a circle pointing fingers at everybody else saying, your advisors are everybody else but you're not admitting it. >> i do think it's so much a matter of bias at the networks. >> i don't think so at all. >> i think the problem at the

networks these days is they simply are not putting the money into the kind of news coverage that is vital to a democracy. >> with the money helped? >> that money would help it for one thing you would open up -- when has the world ever been, in your experience, a more dangerous place than it is right now? and you know, i happen to believe that the worst times of the cold war, yes, we went to the break of nuclear war with the cuban missile crisis, but the fact of the matter is there was a balance between the great parents. these days we need information from the third world more than we've ever needed it before. we don't have the reporters out there. >> that's absolutely true. and i'm sorry to say at this particular time that we have ran out of time. it happens. which is the relentless clock as relentless for older reporters -- i think the clock occupant little more respect for people.

but anyway i want to thank our wonderful audience you for being so polite and nice and being with us tonight. and they have been able to see us in this magic of the internet. if they flick on right now they can actually see us. not just on cable but they can see us through the internet all over the world. it's a magnificent thing. i want to thank our guests, ted koppel, for sharing his time and insights with us. [applause] >> let me -- let me close with the following thought. we are all dazzled by the digital age and understandably so. the speed, the axis, everything live, it's truly amazing. but every now and then i worry that we may be losing sight of the fact that this new technology is only a tool.

it's a tool for the dissemination of what we as journalists have discovered. it can never be considered more important than the content of what we have discovered. hourly, daily broadcasts, the story that needs telling, the prime, this deed of his judgment that needs exploring. i look out and ask you all, are there any new edward r. murrow's in this audience? we need you now more than ever to help sustain our democracy, good, honest, and unafraid, even on occasion rambunctious, outrageous journalists. is essential to democracy. murrow once said this is now time for fear, and he was right. so young murrow rise up. rise up. ted and i have done the best we

can, now it's your turn. use these modern tools, but use them well. because otherwise as murrow once said, it's all just lights and wires in a box. so that's it for now. i marvin kalb and quoting murrow once again, goodnight, and good luck. [applause] >> you have been warned. this is your time to ask questions. there are two microphones. i see one over there and one over here. if you get up to ask a question, that's going to be fine. please identify yourself. and the idea is to ask a question. [laughter] don't make a speech because i will cut you off. i will be very nasty. why do we start here on the right, please, go ahead.

>> how are you doing, old friends? days from the state department. can use us the coverage of the israeli-palestinian conflict? isn't there who is doing the best chocolates and are the wars and horse in africa, asia less important because they don't get coverage? >> let me take the second half of that question the first. there has been a war going on in congo for well over 10 years now. it has cost more than 5 million lives spent 5 million? >> 5 million, people who have died of starvation, disease and driven into the jungle, tied to there. people have been killed in fighting. more than 5 million people. barely covered.

we have barely even noticed it. i mentioned that because journalism, like foreign policy, is frequently affected by national interest. to the degree that there is a perception that what happens in the congo is less important in the united states, we don't cover it. we are infinitely more engaged right now in what's happening in syria, but the coverage of what's happening in syria, not bad, but i don't know that it shed a great deal of light. and part of the problem is even, you are asking about, i know you began by asking me about what's happening in gaza, and what i think of the coverage of that. did i hear you correctly? >> yes, you did. >> it's, you know, anytime

israel is involved in a story it becomes an excruciatingly difficult story for american journalists to cover. because there is, for the most part, a natural sympathy in this country, a sense of identity in this country with israelis. and many reporters, old friends and colleagues, the late peter jennings, used to i think very unfairly be criticized for taking an anti-israeli point of view, was so much an anti-every point of view as that it spent many years living in the arab world and had a sympathetic point of view that arabs. i think what is happening in gaza right now meets almost any definition of tragedy.

the israelis cannot be expected, on the one hand, the standby while their cities are rocketed. on the other hand, the great irony, the paradox in that story is because the defense forces are infinitely more professional than hamas fighters, the number of casualties on the palestinian side are always going to be much greater, thereby leaving an impression that there is somehow something unfair about the war. this is precisely a time when you need the correspondents have spent years in the region, because by and large, you ask me what i think of the coverage, i think it's surface. it focuses on the obvious, the casualties. you don't hear much about the

underlying causes or what the underlying possibilities may be for agreement between the two sides. i think that's one of the things we have lost in not having resident correspondents who report from a region year after year after year. >> is interesting, just an additional point, ted, a couple of nights ago abc "world news tonight" had -- happened to be there doing another story when the gaza story erupted. and anchor diane sawyer turned to her, with a big intro, that we have chris there and she will give us the inside story. at then they it for about 45 seconds. to do the inside story. and she was, you could see. she really couldn't get it out. it was very difficult. so that is yet another dimension of trying to make everything

bite sized, even an analysis by a reporter who really does understand that story, would have been wonderful to hear more from her. >> yes, please. >> good eating. i'm with talk radio news service. you mentioned an interesting point before, mr. cabot cut you off about our intelligence be did he does that all the time. [laughter] >> it was a moment where you were talking about how our intelligence services were may be stretched too thin thin but i'm putting words in your mouth, but you would intimate that there was, that because we were not only having a lack of journalists in different parts of the world but we were also speakers affecting the intelligence. >> i wanted, there is another question but i thought condi said something and i thought maybe i could keep you that

moment to expand on that. i thought that was really fascinating. considering how the american public tends to trust the demagoguery, the left or the right -- >> but you do have a question speaks the question is, mr. coble, can you elaborate on that point? >> the point i was going to make is essentially the same thing is happening within the intelligence community as is happening within a television news community. and that is, there is the perception that technology isn't adequate replacement for human intelligence. there is the perception in television news that you can use the satellite, you can use a jet plane, you can get somebody in from anywhere, i may, from the united states you can reach any part of the world in 18 hours or less, right? and by virtue of the satellite you can report instantaneously. but that doesn't substitute for having a reporter who has been on the ground, four years.

the same thing is true for the same reasons in the intelligence community and is also budgetary cuts. and people are being told look, we can get the same kind of information with electronic intercepts, with satellite reconnaissance, with technology, in other words, win in point of fact having a human agent on the ground gives you a depth, a third dimension that you cannot get from the technology. >> yes, please. >> i'm a retired foreign service officer. i began my career in the u.s. information agency when people still remembered edward r. murrow. i ended it shortly after afghanistan, at the state department public diplomacy officer with a press officer who had never ever worked with the press nor spoke dari.

i'm wondering if those of you in the networks ever noticed that u.s. i a went away and if you think that that was part of the weakening of the ability to report stories with great objectivity overseas? >> marvin and i became friends after i came back from three years in indochina and was assigned to the state department as diplomatic correspondent. i have been blessed throughout my television career with having marvin kalb and bernie calvin as competitors. and as you may imagine, you don't travel with people from your own network. you travel with the opposition. and i was really blessed in having these two men as opponents. during the years that we traveled together covering henry

kissinger in the middle 80s, we always had someone from voice of america on the plane, and i remember a woman by the name of -- >> marie. >> who was the voice of america reporter, and she didn't talk much. she wasn't the one, belaboring henry kissinger with questions. but she wrote very clean copy, and she was a very good reporter. and i think, you know, i haven't been a diplomatic correspondent in many years, so i don't travel with this extra state anymore, but i rather suspect you have anyone from voa traveling with the secretary anywhere. and that's a loss. >> i want to share something with you all. being a competitor with ted

koppel, when we traveled around the middle is in those years, i had a very bad back condition, and when we arrived somewhere we would all have our portable typewriter and our overnight bag, and the big stuff went in the plane. abc news picked up very often my typewriter, my overnight bag because they could see i couldn't pick it up. now that's being a good competitor. >> my name is david. mr. koppel, i was hoping to talk more about what you define as objectivity. is a modern to political science? where does your analysis come in? ..

on reporters who would go out and get me one opinion for, one opinion against and one down the middle. it is bill easiest form of journalism there is in the world. to the degree that one side or the other can be ascertained as having the facts on its side they have an obligation to report that. i don't think there's an obligation to say on the one hand they believe and apple will

fall from the tree and hit the ground and there is all that says that and simply because there is an idiot out there that claims that apple's flow to. laughter could object devotee doesn't mean taking one of this side and one of that site and presenting both to the audience to select. your job as a journalist is precisely to go out, to do that reporting and then as i said early on, to analyze it, to separate the week to put into a proper context. and if the overwhelming scientific community or if the scientific community overwhelmingly says there is global warming, do you give a nod in the direction of some other intelligent force? yes. why not. but you certainly don't do it on the basis of equal time.

>> when the pressure first was directed at the networks to be objective and fair what they would do as you remember is they would put a republican of here for 30 seconds and a democrat for 30 seconds and then they would be objective and they felt they were telling their story but they never got at the essence of what activity as i think you have so well described it tonight. >> my name is catherine rodriguez, and i am a junior journalism meteor that the public gw. my question is in this highly volatile political climate we've noticed several instances where the major news networks rush for a headline that turned out to be wrong like with wolf pulitzer and the obamacare supreme court ruling. and in our profession, how do we balance accuracy with the desire to be the first to break the news?

>> jarvik question. thank you. >> i've been lecturing quite literally for 25 years or more about this desperate struggle to be first with the obvious which i think is often the sort of driving engine particularly of 24/7 cable news. somehow -- and this goes back to the time they were just three networks -- there would still be when a major story broke -- i still remember moments of huge self congratulations at abc and ensure it was the scene at cbs or nbc. we had the story one minute and 40 seconds before cbs and i remember saying at that time when i was a young journalist at the time i don't know of anybody out there -- the american public

that is -- who was sitting there as we were in the newsroom with a bank of ten television monitors aware of the fact cbs has something first, nbc, second, we were third. if you are at home watching television switching madly between channels and was bad 25 years ago is absolutely horrendous today. if i'm watching cnn and if i think they are doing a fairly decent job of covering the story i am not constantly flipping back. that may be a generational. i have teenage grandsons who seem incapable of watching anything for more than eight seconds at a time. [laughter] without switching to another channel.

but no. did i answer your question? >> not really, but it's very good. [laughter] >> it was a very good question. >> there's one more here and you're going to be the last 1i am afraid because we are out of time but i want to apologize to everybody else who's waiting to ask a question. i'm sorry. but when this is all over why don't you besiege mr. koppel. [laughter] then you can get your questions. >> and beat the crap out of him. [laughter] >> thanks for taking my question. i'm a graduate student of multimedia journalism at the university of maryland also have an on-line news site called on-line citizens news.com peery it is usually considered to be dull and boring in a way that is fun and sexy and engaging and we have all these tools -- >> ms. ask your question please. >> to get the information out and throughout the evening seems like we've been given this

choice of charlie sheen reporting perhaps less significant and important significant news that affects our lives presented in the way of itself. when we have so many tools at our disposal, why do we need to think about important news as being something that can't be cool and engaging and from. why does it have to be presented as something dole as an alternative? >> you may be surprised to learn i don't entirely disagree with you. for many years at nightline i used to tell the staff there is no story out there that we cannot do in an engaging and interesting way. i think he made the perhaps understandable mistake of interpreting what marvin and i have been saying when we refer

to important that important means even in our mind dull. on the contrary the most interesting things in the world are those things that are most important. and i think it is our obligation as journalists not merely to say here are the facts, do with them as you will. but to put the facts in two and perhaps i should have added the adjective interesting context. we have to make the news interesting or we can't expect anybody to watch. but it's interesting means controversial, if it means argumentative, it's interesting means sacrificing object to the, then i guess you are right i am doomed to be seen as dull. >> thank you very much. [applause]

thank you very hatch. >> you are as wonderful as ever. career officers change this army so that it becomes a volunteer army. go and find your soldiers in the labour market. find them in the villages and towns of america. and we did that and for the

purpose of about five or six years we created an absolutely splendid force of young men and women willing to serve their country as volunteers and they had the same tradition, the same culture, loyalty and dedication as any other generation of americans that have gone before and they prove themselves in the gulf war and the panama invasion they prove themselves in the last ten years in iraq and afghanistan. but the thing we have to keep in mind is something president lincoln said in the second inaugural address care for those that have borne the battle. it means never forget they are carrying the americans. , the american tradition with them and when they get injured or hurt or just come back to be reintegrated in society we have to be waiting to care for them, not just the federal government or the veterans administration

but fellow citizens. yesterday the national urban league policy institute held an economic forum in washington. the first panel from that even to examine whether existing

education policies helped minorities compete for jobs and foster economic malaise. this is just over an hour. >> let me contextualize the urban ideas for rum. recently, you heard a prominent former candidate for high office talk about urban as being the reason that one ticket was not successful on november 6th. in using that term, he may have meant to characterize urban as meaning something that urban is not. urban is not a synonym for black

or african-american. urban is not a synonym for hispanico latino or asian. urban is not a synonym for communities of color. what it represents is coming together the mixture, the synthesis of all of the communities of america. look at america's urban communities today. in america's urban communities every ethnic group presides. every economic class resides. every strand of political philosophy presides.

a great academic institutions make up the fabric of urban america. great media organizations, libraries, cultural institutions make up the fabric of urban america. urban represents the best of america and it represents what 21st century america is really all about which is each and everyone of us together. so i encourage when people bandy around terminology that we understand what it means so the urban ideas from while with the discussion about challenges, problems and solutions that urban communities face, it is a

discussion about challenges, opportunities and solutions for the nation at large. i will submit to you that in 21st century america the suburbs are now part of urban america. witness the suburbs of this capital city, with its northern virginia or maryland and you find the very same tapestry of america that i described. as of the national urban league and our policy institute in organizing this urban ideas forum, begins what i hope and i confident will be a series forums like this where we can have a candid, open idea oriented exchange about some of

the solutions that the nation needs today and some of the ideas that we will walk over to both the white house, the agencies and capitol hill and encourage because they are not only best for urban america that their best for all of america and the spirit with which we began this conversation today. a final point, and i emphasize with colleagues and friends all the time that the national urban league is not a fish tank but we know how to think. we are not a talking tank but we know how to talk. we are a do tank, and our intent is discussion, ideas and thought leadership that lead to action,

action of leads to results and results that lead to changes in the lives of people. so today there is an abundance of information that quinby shared. i do want to highlight these documents which are in the folders. one is our education plan and the other is our jobs plan which have been assembled by a team of expert staff and others and ifill yet leaders over the past two years which frame some of our thinking. so again, i want to thank you all of you for coming. we appreciate everyone. let's have a great discussion today and have a great weekend and happy thanksgiving as you leave today. it is now my pleasure to introduce a good friend of the national urban league, a good friend and one of the nation's most important voices in the 21st century on a wide range of

issues. she leaves the nation's largest hispanic civil rights advocacy group, ladies and gentlemen, janet murguia. [applause] >> thank you, marc. good morning everyone and thank you so much for the opportunity to be here today. i want to especially of course thank you my good friend and colleague marc morial. he and i started about the same time. maybe he was on about a year or two before i did and our respective organizations and i am so proud and appreciative of the partnership that we have established and the understanding that he and i share in this commitment to come together across the communities of color and to tackle those issues and challenges that we face together. marc as a champion for economic justice, social justice, fairness and equality and he's been a great mentor to me.

it's no surprise at the center of the ideas forum here is marc morial leading the way and the urban league leading the way so it is a point of pride to be here. the national urban league and the national council have worked together on a host of issues from addressing the for crisis that has decimated both our communities to expanding green jobs and other 21st century job opportunities of communities of color to making sure that all of our kids and families have access to the latest technologies, broadband. our partnership is a model for how communities can work together on the issues of the greatest importance to them and i think all of you for that. in the communities for job creation latinos and african-americans are experiencing unemployment rates that are greater than the national average. the focus for president obama

and the congress and the second term and for the new congress. the communities that turn out in record numbers voted for and they made that difference in the election despite the fact that some states and a lot of people have tried everything in the book to keep us from voting. so behind him what'd we do have work ahead of us in the lead over the fiscal cliff weech mekouar working families are protected which means and in parts and training programs this is not just an issue for our communities but for the country. since african-americans and asian americans and latinos, native americans make up one-third of the u.s. work force

second, it means investing in the future for our children african-american and latino kids are the work force of the future. the investments we make now will pay off dividends when we really need them in the decades to come as the baby boomers start to retire. the key is better education and especially important issue given that the communities of color represent nearly half of today's students and kate ralf. we need to increase funding for education especially preschool education which is the single most effectively to ensure a child's academic success in school. third, we need to support the local organizations that are on the ground serving these communities and making the most difference in our communities. organizations such as local urban league's and hundreds of community-based organizations in the hispanic community. the bang for the buck we get from investing in these groups is the enormous because they

know how to do it in innovative and entrepreneurial fashion and the of the business models that have allowed them to succeed. finally there has been a great deal of talk since the election where there is now a new life on the immigration issue. i believe there is and we are working hard to capitalize on the momentum that election provided on this issue but we haven't heard a lot about how enacting the comprehensive immigration reform can help on the job and economy issues. simply put, immigration reform would create a fair, humane and effective system that levels the playing field for all workers. right now our immigration system doesn't work for anyone but u.n. scrupulous employers. we need to take the power out of the hands of those that are exploiting our current immigration situation and put it back in the hands of workers in fair and honest employers. if the workers have a legal

status, employers can't skirt labor laws and so they would have to pay fair wages and abide by the rules. immigration reform is the right thing to do as well as the economically smart thing to do. children shouldn't have to live in fear of their parents deportation every day of their lives and some of the hardest working most vulnerable people in our society shouldn't have to be subject to exploitation and harassment. finally, i would just like to say that i am truly appreciative of the support that we have received from the urban league and other african-american leaders on this issue i know that there have been in tensions in the past. the reverend of dr. martin luther king jr. when we have those we have to embrace them so we can pass them. this is our time to come together to break those issues down. let's get a solution on this issue. as we come together we can figure this out. i had the privilege of marching

most recently this year in the annual march from selma montgomery and for us in alabama it was an incredible feeling. there i was with the congressman john lewis, someone who obviously has a historic role from the original march, and so many others. it was the reverend that all sharpton and there were hispanic leaders and putting myself and there were asian pacific american leaders and everyone came together. when we came over that bridge i got a glimpse into what that might have been like in the past and i also got a glimpse of what the future looked like. and it was powerful to me to know that we could come this far after enduring so many

challenges. and the fact that we were there together fighting against the voter suppression law and anti-immigrant and antihispanic that we came together as a collision. it gives me great confidence to think that we can tackle many of these important issues that we face today. you have a commitment from the national council of la raza to work with you all and to help figure these solutions out so that we can keep the country stronger. thank you very much. [applause] >> at this time we're going to go into the panel discussions and it is my pleasure to introduce jonathan to moderate the discussion. [applause] good morning everyone. thank you for coming.

i'm not used to doing the good morning and then waiting for the response back. so my apologies. thank you for the introduction. again opinion writer of "the washington post" and msnbc contributor. mark, janet to set the stage. i'm not going to keep talking and just going to get started. you've heard from marc morial. next is joel packer at dreeben group and is a noted authority on federal education policy. to his left is dr. michael fauntroy as a professor of public policy at george mason university where he teaches urban policy come civil rights policy and american government and we have just heard from janet from the national council of la raza. so, with that, mr. packer, the microphone is yours. you're opening remarks.

first thank you, jonathan, for the introduction and marc and janelle and others for having me on the panel. i appreciate being here with my colleagues what we tell you a couple things about the growth in case you don't know. the rayburn group as a government affairs public affairs firm with 40 to focus on our staff and overall the majority of our clients are what i would call progress of nonprofit organizations so the firm is really committed to the advancing the ideals and missions of a broader range of the progressive community. personally i do education policy and i work for the national education association for 25 years and i've been doing education policy overall for about 35 years now. i want to talk first about some of the challenges we are facing because we face a lot of challenges. since we are here in washington we will talk about the challenges we face from the congress and the whole set of

issues and we will talk first about the funding. one of the plans i represent is the committee for education funding which is a collection of 100 national education organizations but as its name implies focuses on increasing the foot of ljungqvist education and we are facing lots of challenges there since the recession started there's been a decline of about two and 50,000 school district jobs so there's fewer teachers and counselors and bus drivers and other staff that means larger classism the curriculum cut back on the after-school programs, things like that. 35 states this year are spending less money on a per pupil basis after adjusting for inflation and they spent four years ago because it's been very significant and state budget cuts to to the state budget down terms. while the state budgets are starting to recover, many school districts are still very heavily dependent on property taxes and

property values are far from recovered where they were a and often assessments lag behind what's going on with the property values so we can expect some continued decline in the local school funding. at the federal level, the last couple years we had about $1.5 billion of cuts to education programs. at the higher level from the federal government there's been restrictions on eligibility for the pell grant program. there's been restrictions on the student loan program so over the last couple of years college students have actually contributed about $4.5 billion in the pockets towards the deficit reduction. so we have had lots of things squeezing as at different levels. we are now facing the biggest threat to what is called the sequester in the fiscal cliff and part of the fiscal cliff is across-the-board spending cuts to take effect on gentry second. it's been to be about an 8.2%

across-the-board cut in education and job-training and health and housing and the fbi coming air-traffic control, food safety, an entire range of domestic programs. for education that can't be what you count head start for the department of health and human services. it's to be about a $4.8 billion cut, the largest education cut ever in history of the country that would move us further essentially move us backwards on whether the goal is closing achievement gap, increasing high school graduation rates, increasing kawlija access and college completion so our biggest challenge in the short term is to work together with groups like the urban league and the national council of la raza and others to come up with a balanced approach on the deficit reduction and as janet said, ask people who can afford to pay a lot more to do so without balancing the budget on the backs of children and students

and working people and low-income people. there's a couple quick things i want to say that we are also facing increasing enrollment expected to go up in the next decade with the elementary and secondary level even faster than the higher education level. we have now 22% of children in the united states living in poverty, the highest level in decades. it creates more challenges for schools. congress is unfortunately in terms of the policy front very gridlocked. the elementary and secondary education act was supposed to have been real authorized in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 come 2012. the outlook for whether that is done next year is not very optimistic. it's very outdated. it's over 10-years-old now and really needs a lot changes. i think the program that the urban league put together in your packet is a great plan and i think as the program talks about we need to focus on the

whole child. there's been this rift within the education community between the education reform groups and the traditional education groups and it's a question of can schools by themselves sort of overcome all of the barriers and obstacles the students face in poverty and housing and other things or do we need to focus more broadly on the whole child and the answer is i think we need to do both, both improve schools and teacher quality but also focus on issues like housing and poverty and employment for students families. at the higher education level i would say again, lots of challenges due to the state budget cuts, tuition and the public sector has really gone up faster than the family income in the last several years. there's going to be a big shortfall in the pell grant program in the next fiscal year as much as seven or $8 million that could further end up restricting eligibility.

student loan interest rates are scheduled to double again in july so we have another big fight about that. and again the high year education act is up for the reauthorization. i would say one last thing that in addition to maintaining the nation's commitment to the pell grants and student loans they need to be getting a lot more on programs that provide support services for students. obviously students need money to go to college but for what first generation the need counseling, tutoring, mentoring so the programs like trio fisa michael the over there, programs that focus at the middle school level but help give students the academic support mentoring and counseling they need to succeed is another piece of the puzzle. i will stop there's a we have more time to talk about these during the discussion. >> good morning. i'm going to be speaking today from the perspective of a professor, an educator and also a board member for the campus

scholarship in washington, d.c.. we've given about a million scholarships' to washington, d.c. public school graduates over the course of the last 20 years or so with an endowment of more than $2 million, and my experience is on the board and also my experiences at the university where i teach with graduate and undergraduate students and public policy and have led me to a number of conclusions that run counter to what are the traditional view of what the american dream is all about. for as long as we can sort of remember, a college education has been the ticket to a more comfortable life, and while that reality still exists, it is competing with some alternatives that i think will hamper not just urban america but in urban america in general and by that i

mean the cost of the ticket to actually get in and complete college represents a barrier that i believe will ultimately injure our economy. not only that but a rapid change that technical evolution is bringing about house creeley today spatial mismatch between the kind of jobs that are going to be available going forward and the kinds of people who are able to take those jobs. and that problem is most acutely seen in urban communities which have them to your point dealing with more basic concerns more so than trying to prepare and get ready and respond to changes going forward, and that is for those who actually are going to college and graduating. we haven't talked about those who are not.

and so our young people are falling what's going on. they are seeing with their older friends are dealing with an understandably wondered about their prospects. so i think we have to pay close attention to that. i am a higher educator. i teach in the public university system and the state in which i teach in virginia use the number of state legislative budget cuts for colleges and universities throughout the commonwealth. virginia is one of eight states that cut at least 30%, have cut their funding at least 50% over the last decade or so to their public institutions. well public institutions are the backbone of the american - education and institutions are being cut then again that is more evidence that we have a significant problem going forward and when we talk about cuts in public education we

often think about the flagship institutions in the states but there's a whole other number of institutions below the flight should level that are also impacted. i'm a graduate of historically black colleges and education -- colleges and universities and i understand that these in particular have been a prime socialize our for middle class african-americans coming and so if we see fewer people going into the door and fewer people coming out with degrees, then again i think that is also something that we need to be concerned about. the particular worry that i have is one that gender imbalance in hbcu's. they have a male amol but less than 45%. i've had the occasion to speak at some institutions in north carolina, for example of that

have 35% male enrollment, and just think about what that means socially for those students. so i just want to make two final points. one tactical and one policy. the tactical point that i would like to make is that if we have to do a better job of the language of policy about the hyper scientific way image the presidential campaign most specifically the alana campaign -- obama campaign and use language to motivate them to the polls. and we also know they have been sort of marketing changes in the way some approaches from some policy issues have been approached. i want to make a call to us to always talked about these issues as investments and not just more

spending. they also mean something else. it's legitimate and worthy to be pushed aside because some people want to play games with words. so let's call it investment. infrastructure, education and so on across-the-board. the policy point is as was mentioned the fiscal cliff, we are in the midst of a wide range of discussions about what the economy is going to look like going forward and what kind of tax changes need to be made. and when to call for an elimination of the ceiling for tax deductions on student loans. as you all know there is a limit on what one person can earn and still deduct the interest on their student loan payments. let's reward people who've taken the time to invest in themselves and not say once you burned

beyond a certain number you can no longer take advantage of that deduction. because as you know, get into colleges super expensive to be getting through law school or doctoral programs or other medical schools is even more expensive, and we need to be encouraging people to take on the graduate school for example and not using money as a barrier to keep them out. i will close their. thanks. >> that's actually a very interesting idea that you have. so, i look forward to hearing about it today on msnbc. [laughter] >> it's my pleasure. [laughter] so, you know, i go to these things all the time, will go to these things all the time where education is important, children of the future, we must educate our children, and yet any time there is a budget crunch, education always gets the ax. why -- can you please explain

why that is if this is so important as you said these are investments there is no argument about that. if these are such critical investments why is education always getting cut the federal level and at the local level? >> well, i think a part of the reason is, you know, the mathematician sees the world in numbers and ingalls and the lawyer sees the world in the contracts. i'm a political scientist and see the world in politics and i believe that the money is cut in part because those people making decisions on where the money goes they have different priorities. the people who benefit most from public education are not necessarily the people in the room counting the votes on where the money goes. so for me that is sort of where to start and you can build out from there and there are a number of other issues that may be a part of it but i think that when you look at the congress in

particular you look at the people that are making those decisions and i do not think that they have -- i don't think they have education as a priority. i think they have other priorities. there's different reasons for the state and federal level because of the state level education is usually the largest part of every state's budget in elementary and secondary to cut a big budget contractions that becomes difficult because it is such a high part. they say we can cut funding if they can raise tuition and make up the difference, so high here it is one of the few areas in the level that has its own revenue source but to short side this squeezing off access, the federal level our problem is everybody you talk to in congress with exceptions of the

tea party types would say yes i'm a big supporter of education. the problem is not to get to wonkish but it's a part of this part of money that is called non-defense discretionary which i hate that term but that is just what it's called and it's become the easiest part of the budget to cut because a member of congress can say i'm cutting that part of the money to identify what they are actually cutting because the decision is made later and then when you press them and say you voted to cut funding for education know, i'm not going to cut education funding, but in the same money with cancer, research, job training, the fbi, air traffic controllers, the national parks there's nothing easy to cut so the smarter that pot of money gets, the more difficult it is to ever get an increase and the more likely it is we get cut. part of it is structural limit the that the congress sets up the budget, but i agree we are talking about children and about money targeted to the particular high level and those are places

that don't have this much political power as other voices and what happens in the congress. >> did you want to jump in on that? >> i think our hope is that if this demographic change that we are seeing out there that the broad population will understand this really is about investment. it's not about spending any more. when you have a 20% gap in educational attainment between white and black, not quite in on white kid which is bad enough, but with minority children are off 30% of the nation's kids that is what is happening right now. but imagine intend to 15 years when those kids are going to be 45% of the nation's kids we have to really think about what does that mean for our future economic competitiveness? and i think there is more of a link in the thinking that is

occurring out there between what happening today and what happens tomorrow we're in the past i'm not sure that we saw the crisis around the low educational attainment level that was happening in the current population and what it potentially means for us in the future and you have to expect as folks are looking at future work force and what skills we are going to need to be competitive and to support the various entitlement programs that are out there you need a workforce of they want to be engaged and globally competitive and if we are not able to produce and close that gap this really affects not just that community, it affects the country and i think we have to do a better job of communicating with the impact of those investments today will

mean tomorrow. >> as you have all mentioned there is the fiscal cliff that's coming and we've got sequestration. on top of that, the folks at the -- i don't know what direction that we are in that in a big white building with a dome on at that have to deal with the growing debt so at some point, you know, folks are going to have to tighten their belts. let's pretend like this is our own fiscal cliff negotiation session. which three programs that now can possibly be cut absolutely must be walled off from being cut if these investments are to be maintained and not hurt the country in the future. i will put it in this context people don't realize this, the entire budget in the u.s. to put

a vacation is less than 2% of the whole federal budget so cutting education has no impact on the deficit because it is so tiny to begin with you could eliminate the entire u.s. department of education and would go from 1.3 trillion to 1.2 trillion. it's not meant to have an impact. second, it is shortsighted and it's into harmless in the long term because the higher level of education people have the more money they earn on average and the more they pay in taxes and the less likely they are to be employed or to be getting food stamps or other social services, so it helps not just those people was people but it helps the economy and the government and competitiveness, so i would argue and we've already had in the last two years the congress eliminated funding so you can say some of them were or were not effective they've coined it eliminated the low hanging fruit, and the programs left our

funding for kids with disabilities, funding for high poverty schools, funding for teacher equality, paying for college. those are things that i would say as opposed to looking to cut any of them which would be looking again at asking people who can pay a little bit more money to do so and that we shouldn't be a balancing the budget on the backs of students. >> i was trying to figure out a way to avoid the question. >> and i wasn't going to let it happen to the estimate i just want to go to everything he said. but i do want to underscore this notion of the context. there's been a false equivalency created in our budget discussions that take the case that everything should be up for cutting. when there is more on some programs them there or on others you're point with regard to education funding is absolutely on point and also with regard to the state public education, k-12

we are talking largely about state funding. we aren't even talking about federal involvement so i would add that as well. >> i know there's different layers to this budget discussion but let's assume everything is on the table right now certain programs are protected but let's assume everything is on the table i would just say that, you know, when you look at the poverty rate when you are talking about communities of color you are talking about if we can deal with the poverty rate, then we can get a handle on how we can lift this up. right now the safety net program for those in poverty is medicaid and the most vulnerable in our society rely on that in putting our children and we need to make sure there is a fire wall and medicaid, and i would argue that is on the cut side. on the tax side i would say that would be foolish as we are looking at tax reform to also eliminate the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit,

all of those really provide incentives and opportunities for folks who are working to people to continue to work and it is just enough of the difference the tax credits aren't enough to keep them in the working class of families, so i think we have to look of course that programs like education and training programs that when the rubber meets the road to the corroded their hour core safety net programs on the one side that include i believe those programs that protect the most vulnerable and the poor which is medicaid and there are these tax credits that really provide a common sense rationale for keeping folks working and out of poverty so those are those that keep us out of poverty to the i would argue those are the essentials core elements of any deal that goes forward. >> it's sort of my newsman had that popped up.

you said there should be a fire wall against medicaid and i don't want to dwell on this point but does that mean that say in the negotiations over the grand bargain last year between the president and the speaker the president put the entitlement programs on the table by saying that medicaid should be firewall would do not support any kind of adjustment cut to medicaid as a part of a bigger deal? >> i have to tell you i was fortunate to be in a meeting with the president on friday and we talked with the fiscal cliff issues and what's at stake and we talked about this very issue and i think right now it is important to work off a set of principles, and i think nobody wants to lock themselves in because you have to have some flexibility. it is a deal. it's not the mandate to dictate

someone so i would say as long as the principles of the deal or to protect the most vulnerable, to protect the poor and to get the best deal the will do that i think there's a lot of folks that are just sort of saying we have to make sure that is happening and i think right now one of the things we talked about in the meeting is there is no reason why they couldn't come to a deal on not raising taxes on the 98% of folks right now who think of the tax cuts will expire one of go ahead and protect those folks right now and that's also an important element so right now i think these deals are about timing and what kind of flexibility you have on the margin and what i would say is that it probably doesn't make sense for any of us to weigh in with absolute on what program would be an essential program and i would say to you that -- i won't tell you the president agreed. he didn't say he wouldn't touch

it but i know he understands fundamentally how korean central but period missed the most poor and vulnerable in this country. >> just a quick point people may not realize that there is a portion of medicaid funding that goes treacly to the schools for providing certain services for low-income children with disabilities come so in addition to helping the lower income kids some goes directly to schools to provide certain services for students and disabilities. >> so, when we have this discussion about education funding and the potential cuts and deficits and things particularly the conversation that we are having right now, the assumption is we are talking about democrats on the side and progressives on the side of good and republicans and conservatives on the side of the not so good. so who are the champions within the gop leader on the hill or

balad, who are your allies and the ones that you can call on to say help? >> i think everybody is being very careful because it is still being negotiated at the highest level. you don't have rank-and-file members cutting in the steel. they are relying on their leadership and right now there is a lot of pressure on speaker bonner in a very polarized caucus that he has within his ranks and trying to figure out how he can cut the best deal possible the president understands that there is a broad coalition who turned out in droves because they believe that he would represent the principles that would protect the interest of the working families and the poor and i don't know that there are others

than those leaders of the very top that circle the leaders he also met with on friday i think are critically important and all of the folks over there are trying to find the right balance in cutting the best deal possible he's the one on the shoulders right now in terms of trying to navigate a deal that is at the end of the day even the president made this she won't cut a bad deal but not everybody is pretty happy with the deal. not everybody on the left and not everybody on the right is probably going to be happy with the final outcome and that is what the dealmaking is about. we have to hope that it's the best deal possible for us. instead i would just add in terms of republicans the first of all, except funding for education is up in this issue of non-defense discretionary so any

of these i could be talking about how much money should the pell grant get because it's part of a bigger pot of money so our goal is to get rid of the sequestered and protect the non-defense discretionary. i will say there have been republicans were there are republicans that are the champions in particular of the funding for special education for disabilities have been one of the more bipartisan programs. there's also a program called impact that doesn't really help urban areas it's really the school districts near the military bases that provide some extra funding. it's very bipartisan. but there are some republicans that sort of tea party type whose position would be federal funding for education as a complete waste of money we should just get rid of that so we are fighting that group of members, but -- >> we are actually hopeful they could get additional money for

education. the president and his jobs bill called for funding for 100,000 new teachers and $30 million to renovate and modernize the school buildings so with a chunk of that they're actually allocated to the largest school districts so i think there is opportunity to get the targeted increase investments linked to the jobs agenda. >> so what you say to the tv folks that say eliminate the department of education? why must there be a federal department of education? >> so, the reason there is federal funding for education in the front, most federal funding is targeted towards students with particular needs. hi poverty schools to help provide extra reading and math and help the students in poverty with disabilities, migrant students. those are all areas where historically the states have not done a great job and the reason the government got involved in the first place is because those

students for not being well served in the public school system and a lot of cases. so i think the federal focus on the sort of equity agenda and social justice agenda is the right focus. higher it is very different. they provide about 70% of all student financial aid dollars that will eliminate pell grants and the attendance rate would plummet particularly for low-income students so people say to you want to get rid of pell grants? knott really if you want to get rid of the finance for kids with disabilities, not really so it's become an ideological phrase beyond even what they mean. >> this question comes up all the time coming and i want to maybe had this. it's an economic development issue. it is a jobs issue. it's an economic competitiveness issue so that trump's ideologies whether we are going to compete

with the emerging nations of the world. whether we are going to have an educated workforce to compete economically should trump ideologies which is trapped in the last century when perhaps you could argue that in parts of the 20th century for a good part that getting, you know, some education, maybe not even finishing high school there were many pathways to plants and apprenticeship programs and the country could survive and compete and thrive. ..

they're doing okay. why should i be concerned about the rest? we have to elevate the conversation. final point i would make. i think we have to generally pushed back against card the ozzie, not principled solutions. not giving up what you believe in, but hard-core etiology. the thought of the federal government not being in education has not been supported by a single more republican candidate for president than the

21st century. none of them took the position. so that just simply says, if those in the tea party on the far right are in the tea party on the far right. they have not infiltrated the mainstream thinking even in the republican party. >> that can still what was said in the opening remarks about changing the way we talk about this issue. get people to talk about it in terms of investments and not just focus on it as spending. you have been itching to get in. >> just want to pick up on the point with from guard to the speaker. he actually may well be the most important person in all these conversations. the house seats to get to 218. we talk about these broad bipartisan approaches. the reality is, adjusted to 218. we went through this with the affordable care act. so over the course had -- its

numbers. its mass. so we know that going back almost 20 years, when newt gingrich became speaker, the house has generally run like this. no bill that cannot get a majority of the majority will see the floor of the house. now, if the speaker decides to -- i don't have a majority in my own caucus, but i have a critical enough mass to put a bill and place that will settle this stuff and get us to move on to other issues, if he decides to do that we will get a bill pretty quickly. he does not need 100 republicans to do a deal. the question for me as what to see have to do, give up to 60 1/7? make it look like it's of non bipartisan deal.

i'm not sure that he has received enough pressure to get to a point where he is prepared to except to deal that cannot get a majority of a majority. >> on that point. the speaker does not need 100 republicans to get a deal, but as we saw during the debt ceiling fight, he might be able to get the deal done with democratic votes, but he also in the process might lose his speakership because of it. so you are mr. politics. to you think he is willing to put his speakership up for being torpedoed in order to make a grand bargain? >> well, it may well be in trouble anyway. if he's going to lose it, he might as well lose it on something that is really get for the country. having said that, we just get through the reapportionment's -- redistricting process. you know, the district around the country have been gerrymandered in such a way

that, you know, at least for the remainder of this decade it would not be a surprise that the republicans maintain control going for it. so i think he can -- i think he has a space to move that he is not yet publicly acknowledge see as. and i think -- you know, he does not have to acknowledge it publicly. the distance to do the right thing. >> i've asked you so many questions, but we are running at a time for q&a. we have time for some questions and answers. i don't know which one of these cameras is c-span. i'm assuming it's that one. so let the c-span audience that they can ask questions on twitter. urban ideas. so with that, who has the question and where is the my? oh, come on. you can't be that shine. there's a question here.

and i pray that your questions are short. and that there questions. >> hello. member of the urban league. my question, of pre 1954 there were 82,000 black educators educating 2 million people of color. since that time there has been a decline and no plans put in place. i'm glad you're coming up with these plans. however, in the clinton administration the school to a career, school to work initiative was moving us economically and educationally. what aggressive plans to you have to help actualize that as they do it organization. >> okay. where is my brochure.

>> don't read from the entire thing. >> i will certainly just mention in here that the idea of teachers and educators, the idea of education and work force leading to jobs is central to our thinking. our thinking is integrated. it is about the entire child. the reality check that we have today is, all of the fiscal challenges that the nation faces means that the reality is is that there is not billing to be a lot more resources. and that is the hardest thing for me to grasp. we are, however, have to be very principled in saying that across-the-board cuts are not a fair way to do cats. there are certain things like investing in children, building the infrastructure of the nation , helping the locked out and left out find training and

job opportunities that are of a higher priority, perhaps, than other priorities. i don't know if while i was out -- and i apologize for having to excuse myself, whether you got into the defense budget. about $800 billion a year. the united states commitment to a military budget is > the military budget of the next ten highest military spending nations combined. those ten nations together, together spend about

450 billion. we spend 800 billion. now, here is the check. our money is heavily invested in sophisticated military hardware, very sophisticated pieces of equipment which truthfully impacts our domestic economy. but the truth of the matter is to the discussion of budgets, having put many, many budgets together, is not a discussion just about money. it's a discussion about priorities. we have to determine. and to me, when you talk about where the deal is to be made, the sequester includes deep cuts in the military, and many on the right and many in communities where there are a large military contractors that deploy a lot of

people. a bargain to avoid those military cuts, but what we have to say as a nation is, it is important to that we prioritize education, infrastructure right alongside of trying to have security. so we have to realize and talk. we have to talk about the military budget in a way where we say, it's possible to have a safe and secure nation and not necessarily have to spend more than that ten the next largest military spending nations combined. we cannot get to where we want to go unless the military and tax expenditures are on the table. everyone says you have to put entitlements on the table. i do not hear very many leaders

saying, when you talk about all on the table, entitlements, domestic spending, military spending, tax expenditures, those are the components of the nation's budget. i say that to say that to get to where you and i think i and where we think our priorities are, we also have to talk about the priorities the nation has. if now we are going to be taking on the kind of cuts that this still men described, which are going to be damaging to our children, families, and our economic future. >> you mentioned your number one issue was jobs and the american jobs act. what is your ideal jobs legislation apply?

>> education plan, jobs plan. i will say that i would like to see the president reintroduce the american jobs act. it could, perhaps, be updated. i also believe that we need to really think about what a comprehensive infrastructure program looks like. i think it should go beyond transportation infrastructure, including parks, playgrounds, community facilities, education facilities. we need to build a nation. many of those buildings still standing today. you don't go wrong when you build a nation. when eisenhower, roosevelt and then eisenhower to five rows of conceived and eisenhower began the building of the interstate highway system, and all they can have one person in the nation is said that's a huge mistake.

promoted some suburbanization. overall strength in the nation. we need another jobs initiative. if we get the fiscal discussions behind this we can talk early about jobs. for african-americans and latinos the recession hit us very, very hard. we lost the love grounds. we have to elevate those issues on -- to the very same reason. the nation is one-third communities of color. as these communities of color go, so goes the economy and the nation. there is an interdependence today among stock communities

that is very real. we have to talk about the interdependence, educate people about their interdependence. we have to talk about, we talk about lifting of investing in, jobs, the communities of color, it will benefit the entire country. i think that is a very important part of how we think, message, and talk about these things, particularly here in the nation's capital. >> in addition to what mark played out and the president talked about, in his program, and for structure is keep. i think one of the elements of the president's plan and something we have been trying to list as well has been the partnerships between community colleges and community-based organizations to really target regionally the jobs that need to be filled in that region, the lack of skill sets that folks have and really come together, develop those so that they can fill those jobs.

right now we are also seeing the results of the foreclosure crisis. there has been a lot of housing that has gone unattended that needs to be rehab. and that is another opportunity there, as we put people back into those sums, to make sure that those jobs are created to rehabilitate those sums. so there is a lot of opportunity, and many of them are programs, in clr has been working so that we could make sure that we are taking back our neighborhood. many of these have been really affected by the blight of the foreclosure crisis, and i think that there are creative and innovative opportunities to fill those skills sets when we do partnerships with community colleges and community-based organizations. >> i just want to add quickly, my jobs bill would also include doubling down on green technology and particularly solar. as we know from superstar sandy, people were out of power for weeks and weeks.

this seems to me that is a way to help deal with what is likely to be, from what our scientists are telling us, an increase in the kinds and variety and veracity of storms that will damage our communities on the eastern seaboard in particular for years and years. so we're talking about enormous urban communities that are going to be crippled by weather, and we need to be prepared to deal with that. >> did you want to jump in on that? >> i want to go back to one. >> second. i think to help increase the number we have to lift up the teaching profession. we have to make teaching something people value and want to go into. right now there is a lot of criticism about teachers and criticism about unions and they're is a lot of low morale among the teaching profession. at think we really need to do more to encourage young people and people of color and people in inner cities to go into teaching. teach for america, i have

nothing against teach for america, but it is not a long-term solution. we need to get people in the inner cities to go into teaching and serve their own communities. let's also think we need to do a lot more training around cultural competency because there is such a mismatch between the demographics of the teaching profession and the demographics of the student body. [inaudible question] >> the minority population, growing in high numbers. 35 percent. now it's almost 45%. mostly latinos, blacks and asian pacific american. they cannot identify who is educating because they're only there for maybe one or two years and then they're out. they don't look like them. they don't look like a latino educator. did not look like an asian-pacific educator.

it now looks like a black educator. that's a big, big problem. >> to their credit teach for america is reaching out to try to get more ideas about how they can do more to a diversified, but i also think that even within the current system we need only teacher corps, as the president talked about, but even within the current system, the things that have concerned me, the lack of cultural competency, lack of -- weather its asia-pacific america, as bennett, there is still a huge need to support our teachers and principals who are dealing with the english-language lerner students. and they are part of the body. integrated into the mainstream course work and have opportunities to succeed him as mr. mccourt's works, but if we are not letting those extra investments and to provide those supports, teachers or support the teachers' so that they can have that training and be able to do that.

that is happening in real time. we need that cohort to actually be not only attaining the same level, but higher levels of success in education. >> and with that, unfortunately, we are out of time. my apologies. thank you very much. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> coming up on c-span, live to new york city where the united nations security council is meeting to discuss the current middle east violence between israel and palestine. that is set for 330 eastern, again, on our companion network, c-span. tonight in prime time here on c-span2, author mark friedman discusses his new book, the big shift, navigating the new stage beyond midlife. he discusses how the baby boom generation is switching to new careers later in life.

that begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern, again, here on c-span2. >> there are many people who might even take issue with grants saving the union during the civil war. didn't lincoln do that? well, yes, he did, and i'm not going to see grant was the only person to save the union, but he was the commanding general of the army's dumping of lincoln's policies into effect. he was the general who accepted the surrender of the army of northern virginia that ended the war. if anybody won the war on the battlefield, if you could say that any one person did, and of course you can't. one of the things we do in history is generalized. simplified. because history reality is simply too complicated sarah get our heads around. so gramm save the union during the civil war. i do consent that grant save the

union during reconstruction as well. >> from obscurity. a courthouse in appomattox and 1600 pennsylvania avenue. hw brands on the life of ulysses grant's thursday night at 1015 eastern, part of book tv four day holiday weekend starting this thursday on c-span2. >> gettysburg reverberates. americans retain the knowledge that what happens here was the crux of our terrible national trial and even americans who are not sure precisely what transpired on these fields know that all of the glory and all the tragedy we associate with the civil war resigns most probably, most indelibly year. >> thursday night at 8:00 eastern league in director

steven spielberg on the battle of gettysburg and abraham lincoln's legacy. part of the 48 holiday beginning thursday on the c-span american history tv. the supreme court last month heard oral argument in a pair of cases in florida dealing with the constitutionality of using police dogs to trigger searches and cars and homes. over the next two hours oral arguments from those two cases beginning with florida verses sardius. this specific issue is whether the police need probable cause before sending drug sniffing dogs to hunt for incriminating and owners @booktv oprah's. this argument is about an hour. >> we will hear again first in case 11564,. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. in three prior cases in which this court has held that a dog sniff is not address search is

cortes' emphasize that the dogs this is unique. as to the latter point, the court has emphasized that a drug detection dog reveals only the presence of contraband and then no one has a significant expectation of privacy. >> that can't be a proposition that we can accept across-the-board. nobody under that you has an interest in contraband in their home. the question is can you find it. it's a circular argument. with the case the talked about that, that was where their contraband was visible. the smoking gun. well, of course, no interest in the smoking gun. >> i just don't think that works >> justice kennedy, the contraband was invisible for the dog alerted. in the home case we're not saying that you don't have a legitimate expectation of privacy in a home.

of course you do. the questions of the have a legitimate expectation -- >> doesn't that mean that what is in your home that is not visible to the public has an expectation of privacy as well? >> not when it comes to contraband. think that the case -- >> that is secular. whitey you need a search warrant? if you have no expectation of privacy in the contraband, why the reason with the search warrant? >> because, your honor, when you have a search warrant there will be allowed a private affirmation. even if your expectation is finding evidence of a crime. >> does your argument means that you say minimally and to sit -- intrusive. only contraband. crowe and to a neighbor to the a drug-dealing never heard? the dog sniff.

i gather his supposition. >> they could do that. always pointed to the restraint of resources and that check of community hostility. serious academic epidemic. they scarcely community, not only in terms of the drugs. >> supposed to have. no dogs allowed. >> i think that would be different. the way the house is different. homeowners can restrict access to people who come up to their front door by putting dates or science. >> that's right. and there is such a thing as what is called the cartilage of the house.

as i understand, the police are entitled to use binoculars to look into the house if the residents leave the blinds open, right? >> that's right. they are not entitled to go on to the cartilage of the house inside the gate and used binoculars from that vantage by far the? >> they're not. >> why isn't it the same thing with the dog? the dog was brought right up to the door of the house? >> first of all, i think that as this case comes to the court, the police were lawfully at the front door. >> dislike the officer did. >> then we have taken an unrealistic case is that has been conceded because it seems to be crucial that this officer went.

but the bid

>> homeowners the delight dollars of want them off the property, -- >> put up the sign. >> well, they could. certainly houses that have that. >> the question, to the soon it was logical. people knock on my door because they have to say something to me. i don't let a dog, to my door. willy-nilly invited. >> your honor, i think the reason why that does not work here is that if you ask that question with respect to the officer i think it is well settled are accepted the police

of the system walk up the front path. >> does that include them coming up to your porch and getting a ton of a garbage can. >> set up think it was. detective but going up there, knocking on the door. >> the police officers to come to knock on the door. at the he conceded that police officers can't come there to look into the house with binoculars. but faugh. >> when the purpose of the officers going there is to conduct a search, it's not permitted. if the purpose of the police officers is to walk up to the house, answer the door or hope that once they're there is not the owner of marijuana, that would not converted into a search. there is no physical invasion. >> but if you're looking at expectation of are reasonable

you have a home, line drive white. expect people to come up into the house cannot and the door, maybe even with stocks. expect him to sit there and for five to 15 minutes not knocking on the door? doing nothing? i mean, would you be nervous about that? anyone coming to your door. >> i think what happened here -- i think someone comes your door, they can avail themselves of their god-given senses whether it's looking to the window without binoculars, reading and spelling the airbus. i did not think their is a constitutional difference. >> there is. he said you do have an expectation of people coming into your door. perhaps even with binoculars. but not looking into the house,

not looking into the house from the front step did not do it. why is that of a constitutional? because it is very unusual that someone would do that. the homeowner would resent it. the homeowner resent someone coming with a large animal sitting in front of the front steps on his property and sitting there sniffing for five to 15 minutes. forget the same thing. just talking. loud noises. is that something? >> what i think you can say, implied consent. a person on ollie's walking into the front door, taking a sniff a matter of seconds. >> i tell what happened here was 15 minutes. >> the dog is back and forth, tries to figure out where the smell is coming from. you go up to the door, the dog

barks once, and that's it. but some extended and the time going back and forth and back and forth trying to figure out where the greatest concentration of smell is. actually, from a mere reading of the record, and obtrusive process. >> the record shows that the dog was at the curb going back into the car. walking into the front steps, sniffing, alerting, and leaving is a matter of seconds or minutes. the dog is not there for five to ten minutes. happens very quickly. in thinking about reasonable expectations, it's important to keep in mind physically what is happening in these houses. these people are in the houses with the aid of electricity and light and heat. they need air-conditioning in order to control the heat. blowing a very strong odor of drugs out into the public.

people know that. the we know they know that because we have mothballs never found here at the front of the house outside of the house. and so what we're talking about, although we talked about what's going on in the home, really what is happening here is owner of illegal contraband is start out into the street. someone is coming up to it and using their god-given census in the way the dogs use for sensory >> we've had a lot of this. we've had a lot of discussion about whether it's five minutes of 15 minutes or mothballs. i understood the issue before us to be whether or not the fourth time in mid, and search for a doctor, to the door and staff. not making a judgment, i thought , on probable cause and the totality of the circumstances, with the decision below, this is a search. >> probable cause just for the dogs to sniff. that's absolutely right. the dog set. clearly is not a physical invasion.

in the dog -- >> it isn't just the sniffing in the abstract. it's the sniffing at this point. >> the sniffing at a person's front door. >> sure, your honor. if it was in asserts, the police officer walks up there. well, the only search. >> aiden say it wouldn't be a search of the police officer himself did that. there would be intention of selling at the door. he's going there to search, and he should not be under privilege to search. >> in the officer could walk up there and knock on the door, report the smell of marijuana. >> this is what he said. and i'm just going to read it. we think that obtaining by sense enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home could not otherwise have been obtained with the physical intrusion into

a constitutionally protected area constitutes a search. at least where, as here, the topology in question is not in general public use. so what part of that to you think separates your case from this one? in other words, what part of that language does not apply in this case? >> i god-given cents, in the way that has helped mankind. >> does that mean that if we invented some kind of little machine called a, you know, smell mattock. the police officer has this smell a medic machine, and it alerted to the exact same things that a dog alleged to. it alerted to a set of drugs, marijuana and whatever else. the police officer could not come to the front door and use that machine. >> the contraband rationale would be the same. it will be different in that you don't have technology, and i think that's an important distinction. the court was very concerned

about the existing technology. the test is not true. >> your basic distinction is the difference between a machine and frankie. we should not understand, frankie is kind of a sense enhancing law-enforcement technology. we should think of him as just like a guy. >> your honor, i think that's true for two reasons. one is, that same sense of smell. if you allow a doctor is that today, cats not going to happen. frankie is used the -- the use of dogs for their sense of smell generally using the law enforcement side. >> that this purpose. i think you recognize that it was north until the 70's. use it in this way, i think apollo -- >> to use it for drug detection

purposes, that's right. using dogs to track the centuries going back before the founding. seven guards used dogs ted track jack the ripper. that is the same type of way in which they're being used here. the fact yesterday they're looking for drugs. >> there is no dispute that dogs can smell what human beings cannot. is that correct? we can find machines to put on a human being to enhance the sense of smell. dogs can do something human beings can't. >> to have a much better sense of smell. that's right. >> you have to treat them like a guy. think that he is not like technology in terms of augmenting what the human being can do. he's not augmenting. the substituting. >> the dogs have an enhancement compared to the officer, but it's really no functionally different than using an airplane to look into a house. in that sense i think this case

is a lot like that. the officers used a helicopter to fly over the drug house. they saw exposed marijuana. here they're using the drug detection dog, the smell, the odor of marijuana being pumped out of the house into the street. the people who use the house know that. they know that. and now they know that because the mothballs were present. people don't have eight legitimate expectation of privacy. this court has held. they knowingly exposed to the public. i think here we resolve it to save people who live and grow houses with a distinct odor of marijuana know that that is being pumped out in this tree because the air-conditioning. no invasion on the expectation of privacy. neither a man or a dog, lawfully present on the property uses their god-given senses detect that.

>> thank you, counsel. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. two points to response to the court's question. the question of whether the officer and a dog were lawfully in place, whether they approached the front door. and it as the case comes to this court that is not an issue before the court. >> that did not understand the police to come to the door with a dog for the sole purpose of the dog being to detect. >> let me give the court a specific citation. the court of appeals, florida court of appeals found that the dog in the officer were lawfully in place. one of four, one of five, 112,

116, and 120. the florida supreme court and oral argument responded and conceded there was no reasonable expectation of privacy on the porch, and the florida supreme court accepted that concession. petition appendix page 31 also noted by the defense in pages 78-79 in the brief in opposition to respondents said the police can a person front door for an auction talk and made no separate argument about the dog presents they're making it not lawful. this case comes to the court, it is with the dog in the officer lawfully in place of the front door of approaching the front door just like any girl scout, trucker trigger, anyone else could. just to respond to the questions that you raise, police officers purpose in approaching the front door does not mean that the officer can come to the door. the court has set in many contexts that it does not matter, and it does not matter if the officers looking for a lost child. >> the police could take the dog and go down.

>> well, assuming that the police can lawfully be in a place that they're going with the dog. >> if they are approaching the front door using the normal path because the dog only detect contraband, yes, they could be used in the circumstances, but that is not happening. >> anyone anywhere. we should say that that is okay. we can say it's okay because. [indiscernible] >> justices have warned about this for over 30 years, and these problems have not come to fruition. constraints on police resources, the potential for community hostility. >> this court has dealt with an item that was seized before. what tell with the context of a home.

>> admittedly the court did not decide the specific issue. it distinguished the case as saying that that was finding out about lawful activity in the home and that a person's critical distinction between the dog sniffing is that a person is not unreasonable expectation of privacy. >> reasonable expectation of society. the limited resources. that's all fine. this idea that, if there's contraband, that's just circular and it will work for me. >> well, i wanted to be sure to respond to that, justice kennedy i would hate for the courts have the impression. that's not the case. but we're talking about is a step that would allow the police to get to a detached a neutral magistrate. >> fine. dealing with contraband here. we don't need to worry about expectation of privacy. there is simply no support for

that because jacobsen was clear. the contraband fell out of the package and was in plain view, so that just doesn't work for me in this case. >> the reasoning in jacobson, the court said that the rationale, the reason for its decision and places because we're talking about people's reasonable and took -- expectations of privacy. so it's not just that you want to keep something private. that you need to have a legitimate expectation that you can't amend the court has said over and over emplace and jacobson, you cannot have a legitimate expectation with respect to contraband. >> again, i don't think the case goes that far because those are cases in which the contraband, and it was in plain view. at that point you don't have -- what you're saying is look, contraband in the house. no legitimate expectation of privacy. that, to me, does not work. >> we are trying to say that it

is not that he lacked any privacy expectation. that is why you need to get a war before going into some. the docs that allows to go to a magistrate and establish global cause. >> we can talk about reasonable suspicion. that's all okay. >> in care of the only thing that the beeper alerted to in the home was the can of ether which was clearly an item that was being used for drug manufacturer, and there was nothing else other than that item, which she might not call it contraband, but it was evidence of illegality. this can have either. no thought that it was used for anything else, and that was the only thing they alerted to. nonetheless, of course that is a search. >> i think that my answer touches on the point that you made which is, it was not contraband. the police of that it might be evidence of a crime, but the court did not say it was contraband. there was a discussion, the oral argument work bill was cleared that either has many lawful

uses. >> somebody's house. i mean maybe in a factory or an operating room, but nobody has cans of ether in their house unless they're making drugs. >> with respect, your honor, the defense counsel has incorrectly suggested that, in fact another are lawful uses in photography labs. had an expert that came to the suppression hearing and testified about the various lawful uses. so as the argument came to the court the government was not making an argument that that was contraband or evidence of a crime. the government was saying, it's very limited because we had already tracked the ether to the house. there were not finding that much. the court said basically what it said in palo which is it might not be much but it is about lawful affirmation activity in the house. the court came back and said of the activity in the house. your interest in protecting contraband a different. not a legitimate interest. >> but i think this was what justice kennedy was saying, it was already.

the court just said, this is really no greater intrusion. >> with respect, when we look at the language in these cases the court was not saying it's not a search because the sec already been seized. the court said it was not a search because there is no legitimate expectation of privacy. with respect to contraband, we are only talking about contraband, but also the dogs of unused. >> what i am curious about, and this is an unanswered question for me. we are considering whether the dog sniff is permissible. i wanted to know what a dog sniff in false. page 96, 97, 98 of the joint appendix with which you are familiar. they explain that. it isn't just going up and sniffing. it is a process called bracketing. it described at length.

the officer, the dog officer said he was interested date. he cannot take more than five to ten minutes. my question is whether an ordinary homeowner expects people to walk down and with a big animal and the animal, they don't knock. they behave in page 96, 97, nine airway. by subjectively think that is pretty unusual behavior. whether it is a policeman or anybody else. what do you -- >> this never occurred very quickly. >> 5-10 minutes. >> i think the five to ten minutes was the whole process of bringing the dog up to the door. this never happened very quickly. but pretty much, what the dog is doing is nothing things that have been exposed to the public prensa the house, smells of the officer himself could smell caucus of in place now, and the court is set in other cases that

what the dog is doing is limited in scope, happen quickly, of physical invasion, something that this court has said we want officers to do. >> follow up. does the dog as soon as he or she has come to the door, sniff or does the doctor -- i mean, we talked about this neff was immediate. what is the five or ten minutes? >> as i read the record, the whole process. the dog's death, think, took seconds or maybe a minute. >> the whole process is what? >> they met at the front gate. a walk to the door. the dog to the staff. he talked to the other officer. the new back to his car. some length of time away. >> it does not take five to ten minutes. the officer walks to the door. the docks this right away.

>> the dog stands. he has to find the source of the odor. he starts sniffing right away. he finds the source of the order >> where in the record dry find the few seconds to back. >> i think probably the place to describe to my not sure there is something more specific than that. >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you. >> mr. chief justice. in narcotics detection dog. the fourth amendment search for two distinct and separate reasons. first, when police reveal any details inside the home which an individual seeks to keep private that is a fourth amendment search and is exactly what a narcotics detection dog is

doing, revealing details and the home the individual 60. >> that is your first reason, and i don't want you. that seems to me a proposition that is equally unacceptable to the government. you have no interest and contraband. often when they have ordinary conversations of people, want to find out the details of what that person is doing, where the person lives, what goes on in the house. a nice time. coming home with her children. is this where you live? this is all routine conversation that you always have an order to try to find out what people do with their life. i think the statement, and you repeated it quite accurately from what you have on page 16 of your brief, this goes too far. police action was revealed.

any detail an individual keeps private. that is a sweeping proposition that in my view it cannot be accepted in this case. two sweeping. >> i would add a few words to the end of that statement. anything in individual seeks to keep private in a home, and that is the difference. the conversation, so the police officer can talk to someone and ask them questions. >> the police officer talk to somebody at the police station walking down the street. what the occupation is. they are trying to get information that is perfectly legitimate. >> then your broad statement simply does not work. >> supposed you have someone who has been guilty. he has the body, has committed a murder. he wants to keep that private. he fell asleep and mistakenly leaves the blinds open in the room with the corpses lying.

the policeman, had a great distances a telescope and he looks through the blinds and sees the corpse. can the police go into the home? >> in that situation the person inside the home has knowingly exposed what is inside. >> knowingly, he was careless. >> i understand your hypothetical. he wanted to keep it private. >> certainly. and the defendant in wiley wanted to keep the marijuana private. >> you could say the same thing here. they wanted to keep private the fact that there were growing marijuana, but they use the means of suppressing that made it impossible to keep it private. >> well, -- >> they were careless. >> i don't believe there is anything in the record to indicate that the air-conditioner was blowing this smell of marijuana out from the house. the mothballs, and a dog handler

spinning at the front door testified without contradiction or hesitation, he did smell anything. an air conditioner basically blowing the smell of marijuana outside the house so that anybody -- >> will wear the mothballs therefore? >> the mothballs presumably where there to mask the smell of an odor coming. >> manifesting and expectation. >> well, i we talking about the expectation of privacy in the marijuana was the expectation of privacy in the order? >> the expectation of privacy on -- in the details. what is going on inside your house. >> well, no, that cannot be right. if you're blowing smoke out from the burning of a body your something you don't say, well, because he's trying to conceal that you can rely on the smoke. >> but that's knowingly exposing >> if you appreciate the fact

that the odor is coming out to the extent that you're going to put mothballs all around the house may seems to me that the expectation of privacy, you don't have an expectation of privacy in the odor because you are in meeting it thought into the world. the older the was detected. >> assuming that is with the mothballs were there for. to keep the odor inside the house so that the public cannot find the my cannot detect that odor. >> that's like saying you put the drugs in a bag to protect them from observation. but you use a clear bag rather than, you know, an update what are some think. you are not very successful. but assume that is what they were there for. that is with there were therefore, isn't it? there is no other reason. >> no evidence in the record. >> i think your first reason is

clearly incorrect. so broad. >> yes. i was going to ask. >> well, when a police officer takes a narcotics detection dog to the door of the house, that is also a fourth amendment search because that is a physical trespass upon the constitutional protected area. >> hundreds of years a trespass cases in this country and in england. do you have a single case holding that it is a trespass for a person with a dog to walk up to the front door of a house? >> well, there are cases that go back -- i'm sorry, i don't have the citation, but there are cases in the 1700's that establish the basically a dog running out to someone else's property is a trespass. >> that really wasn't my question, was it? >> of your question was if a dog comes on -- >> a dog on a leash is brought up to the front door of a person's house, is that a trespass?

>> without the consent of the hallmark. yes. >> that is the case custody at have the case. >> the rule has been whether the homeowner has a reasonable expectation of privacy and the -- which was violated or interfered with and the government acted. the question of does he have that reason will expectation? now we're back to exactly where we work. your opponents say there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. comparison to my dog. i'm coming up to the door. your response to that is what? >> my response is, that does violate the residence reasonable expectation. >> another question, why? this is we go back to the 17th century as far as you want.

there is no law that says there is any kind of expectation. walk up to the dock, to the door with the dog on a leash. to which your opponents say has happened here. >> my response to that is that any injury on to private property in the 1700's was a trespass, the tort of trespassing unless it was with in santa. >> in the record. the petition. we were told that that was indeed i your number of times. >> absolutely not. what i said in the florida supreme court, i was given a

hypothetical about an officer coming up by himself without the dog to knock on the front door and talk to the homeowner. i said, i conceded that would not be a violation of reasonable its position of privacy, and this court has stated as much in kentucky versus tank. the court said, was the difference. i said, the dog, and that is is at the lansing here. >> you do concede, is a police officer walks up to the door, smells of himself, no problem. >> of the police officer is knocking on the door, part of an auction talk, yes. >> and smells that himself. there is no problem there. so the difference is the dog. what difference does the dog made? suppose the dog were not doing this ten minute bracketing presupposes really were a very simple procedure, the dog comes up, texas that, barks, sits down. to make it even more the dog is not scary looking.

so just like, you know, the neighbor walks up to your door of the time, that's what this police officer is done. >> well, it's not what the dog looks like. it's what the dog is doing. >> that's what your neighbor's dog does. >> well, no, this dog, the neighbor's dog does not such evidence on your front porch. >> i think, with respect, you are misguided to concede that if it was just the officer alone without the dog would be perfectly. >> i did not mean to concede that. >> i thought you did. i would assume you would say that it is the officer who walks up there with no intention to knock and talked him just walks up to the door with the intention of sniffing at the door, you would consider that to be a violation.

>> and that was the point was going to make. >> our fourth amendment cases are very clear that they don't turn on the subjective intent to the particular officer. >> and i am not arguing that cuts that the aegis said the pennzoil is going to the door to sniffer for something else. >> it depends what the officer does, not what the state of mind is. the officer goes to the front door and start sniffing around the cracks and crevices. >> sure. what if he goes up to the front door as this? how do you tell whether it's different? that understand. he's going have to drop off, you know, tickets to the policemen's ball. he smells marijuana. what is that? is that a violation are not? >> it is not. >> it is going up to sniff it is a violation. >> in the windows could suggest to deliver the tickets and sniffs. is that intends to snuff. ..

i think there are cases established. >> i don't think it's true that the intent of the officer is never relevant. it's never relevant in any context. the reason for the officer going on the protected property is going on and on the door to the policemen's ball. that's fine. if he is going on to conduct a search, that's something else.

>> the language in this case is for the purpose of conducting a search. >> we can always be in the plain sight and smell. as the officer goes up to by the police hoping he sees the dead body okay in both cases. so this depends upon how strong the odor is. the court's decision establishes a police officer doesn't have to close his eyes when he goes up to the front door. he doesn't have to hold his nose to prevent anything that he naturally of a service using his ordinary sense is when he's there for a lot for progress one. >> let's say it is a town house that goes up to the sidewalk. if the police go by with their dog in tending to sniff and the bald alerts knott on a sidewalk

but 2 feet away from the front door. >> it's not okay respectfully because the ball would still be revealing in details the officer could not reveal using his or her own ordinary sense is that is the first argument in the case. >> the policeman as walking on the sidewalk, the dog stops and alerts that doesn't constitute sufficient probable cause to get a search warrant to go into the town house estimate there's a policeman walking with his narcotics protection of a band on the street a dog that he knows. he is not about search and he is watching the canine and the bald alerts on a house without any trespassing do you think that is still bad. >> that would be the same thing as a police officer walking up

and down the street with a thermal imagery that turn on. >> you do say this is an easier case. >> it is because the police officer in this case not only this case the question presented is going up to the front door of the home. >> i thought the relevance of technology was the technology that we have now wasn't necessarily war was not much of it was not a time when the fourth amendment was adopted, so we can't tell what people in 1791 would have thought about it but that's not true of all this. they've been used to detect sense for thousands of years. but in 1791 blogs hadn't been trained to detect collectivity not that they have been trained

to track people had they not. >> if somebody was using a bloodhound to track someone suspected of a crime and they use the bloodhound to track the person to the front door of the house would that have been provided as a trespasser? >> yes, i believe it would. >> what is the case? >> i do not have a case that says taking a blood hound of to the front door of the house would be a trespass. but if you analyze it under the definition of what a trespass is it is an unlawful entry onto private property without the consent of the homeowner, actual or implied consent. >> i don't believe a homeowner consented to the police coming up to the front door of his house with a bloodhound.

>> are there cases that say that the implied consent exists only where the person is coming to the door for a purpose that the homeowner would approve if the homeowner knew the purpose of the person coming to the door. >> the specific doctrine is complied dva implied consent. what is it customary for people to upset in terms of people coming on -- >> how is that different from what justice breyer indicated our inquiries for today in the reasonable expectation of privacy at the community values in general isn't it a reasonable expectation of privacy. >> whether it is a violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy. >> i think i know what your

answer would be. let them talking to their radio, the microphone on their lapel. the first goes to the homeowner and has a microphone so his partner can hear the conversation is that an unlawful search? >> if the homeowner decisis to engage with that officer. >> it doesn't occur to him that the microphone is on. >> but when you talk to the police officer that is a reasonable possibility it's not unreasonable in the policy that if you talk to the police officer that might be going out to another police officer that's in the car down the street but there is no -- >> maybe it is a reasonable expectation. i think that might be harder than the bald case for the reasonable expectation. >> he knows a dog or person

might sell it. >> but this particular case the question doesn't hinge on whether or not a normal officer could smell it because this officer, the detective said -- >> what is the reasonable expectation and that is what we are trying to find out. >> i will look at this later. i thought you were supposed to look at is the behavior of the individual police officer who comes to the door and looks into the house not as the subject of the motive. as you just said they changed that, but i don't know jones is the case they go to the person's car and physically put something in it. that is something of a fact.

this behavior. some of the definition -- >> what intent of the officer. >> it's the language ann jones this is one of the element in determining whether or not a physical trespass constitutes a search under the fourth amendment is there a physical trespass on to a constitutionally protected area for the purpose of conducting the search. >> in the protected area in this case. >> the home even though it is a sidewalk with an implied license to walk up to. >> the license to what ought to the front door, right? >> only to do certain things. there is the implied license to go up for those people. it isn't sacrosanct to do

certain things such as to try not even a police officer can go on to the cartilage to lock on the door to try to engage the person inside the home in a conversation. >> what you can see in the florida court have you conceded that the police officers dhaka had come up to the door and knocked that would have been permissible but that wasn't a search procedure? >> if the police officer was doing at the front door was a dhaka and talk. >> did he have a right under the fact of the case if told that in this house they were growing marijuana assume that is all he had what he has had a right to walk up to the door and start asking questions? >> without the dog walks

>> yes. that is kentucky versus king i believe. >> so you are conceding that he had a license to walk to the door and ask questions. >> there's implied consent for a police officer to go up to the front door, knocked on the door and let him to engage the person in the house and conversations. >> why is that if you took a poll of people and said why do you want -- do you want the police officers who suspect you are engaging in the criminal conduct to come to your front door and knock on the door so they can talk to you and attempt to get incriminating information out of you would most people say yes i consent to that? >> in terms of consent, again complied defeat could implied consent by custom and it's customary for people to expect the police officers may come to your front door and knock on the front door to try to talk to you. >> but the bottom line is are you taking -- it sounds to me like there is no implied consent to bring the dog onto my property.

>> absolutely. >> he says differently that there is an implied consent to bring the dog out for anybody else but a police officer is it implied consent for anyone else or there's no implied consent period? >> a strong argument can be made that there is no implied consent for anyone to bring a dog up to the front door of your house because as you pointed out a lot of the people don't like dogs and some people are allergic to dogs. some are you talking about it all the saying to detect. >> it is any dog but certainly when it is a dog trained to detect contraband no one in plight and ply yolly consents and as justice breyer pointed out that a homeowner has a reasonable expectation of privacy that that isn't going to

happen. >> they are not drug detection dog as an ordinary dogs would you draw the same distinction between a police officer who is not expert at detecting the smell of methamphetamine and a police officer who is expert at detecting the small of that drug? >> in terms of the right of that officer to come up to the door? know there wouldn't be any distinction. you imply a plea consent and have no reasonable expectation that any type of police officer is going to come and knock on your front door and tried to talk to you. >> policemen have to know how to behave, and in this area they can behave the same way as other people can behave and we expect them to behave even though they are always trying to find a crime that's what i fought the law was so i've been trying to figure out just what you say but in a slightly different form do people come up to the door with

all this? yes. do they believe? yes to policemen like other people come out and a brief? yes. we expect people to come up in the brief but do we expect them to do what happens here? and at that point i get into the question what happens here? and i would be interested in your view on that. >> just to clear up i don't believe that what happened here in terms of the use of the drug detection dhaka took five to 15 minutes it didn't take five to 15 minutes. it certainly took i would say at least one or two minutes because what happened, and again this is on '96, '97 and '98 the officer goes from the street over the curve to the front door of the house with the dog basically dragging him out to the front door of the house. they go up this walkway and the picture of the home the dog

crosses out into the alcove area right in front of the house and once he gets in that area the dog starts violently going back-and-forth plan on a leash. the dog handler testifies that the other officer hadn't to stay back because of was so violent that people could get knocked down by what is happening and for a period of time the dog was back-and-forth and back and forth and then at some point goes to the crack on the bottom of the front door, sniffs that and in the process finally stops and he sits down. so that is factually what happened. >> the court of appeals did say that the officer and the dog. you say that you didn't make that concession. >> i didn't make that concession and know i certainly didn't concede that the court found that and that is the point i wanted to make. both courts in florida address that issue.

there is a whole section in the opinion and third district court of appeals saying the officer and that all were lawfully present. the defense council concedes that issue that part of the opinion those refined the the officer and the dog were lawfully present. >> as a statement of the florida law. do we not have to accept that as a statement of the florida law? >> no. >> the issue is whether or not that is a violation of the fourth amendment. just because the third district court of appeals that is the florida court -- that is why the issue has grown before the court. the third district court of appeal decided the officer had the right to go out and be there on the front door with the dog. florida supreme court disagreed. there's a passage in the supreme court that says an officer bring it to the door can go to the door and drain off and talk but when the officer goes up with a narcotics dog that is a

qualitatively different matter. >> maybe this is the same question justice alito asked earlier what people have different senses of smell. so what if there is a person that has the best sense of smell in the department and they say let's use him to go to them dhaka and talk when we suspected drugs that way he may discover the owner of marijuana when other people wouldn't. is it wrong for them to select the person with the best sense of smell to do that? >> that would lead more to the determination if there was a trespass because they selected the officer that had the best sense of smell to go up to that door. >> you said dhaka and talks are okay. >> they are okay but under your hypothetical what seems to mock and talk wasn't really but the officer was going up there for. >> keillor on a slippery slope with that answer. there is still a notice on everything police officers do.

they are not to hope the person comes to the door and that they can see something from the door. they always have a motive so you're suggesting what in terms of the rule that they select somebody with a sense of smell because they have a tip of drugs in the house that we give up on that situation the assumption that they went to investigate? >> the rule asking the court to adopt isn't reliant on the intent of this police officer. >> he says to the neighbor who are you? i've got a report and i am selling drugs, i know you have drugs in there. >> that would be fine. it would be plain smell. >> but if he asks the question second that isn't okay? >> what is not okay is if he goes up there to perform a search or if he conduct a search, and again back to the facts of this case when a police

officer goes up to the front door with a narcotics detection bald there is no question of what that officer is doing. that officer is performing a search and therefore you go to the officer and the dog and they have entered a physical trespass because there is no consent to do that on to the constitutionally protected area and perform the search. if you apply it to what happened here and the question is presented here it is a trespass. >> i thought the rationale that jones added is that is a search of it was a trespass. >> when i come back to the very first question i asked you to have any authority for the proposition that this would be a tres pass? any case, any trespass' case in the last 500 years in any english-speaking country? >> i don't believe any court has failed on this issue as to not

whether or not taking a police officer to the front door of the house is a trespass under the common law. >> you have three minutes remaining. >> first on the question of how long they were at the scene the record says they were at the scene for five to ten minutes. that includes in the car walking up to the door and then back in the car and leaving. bracketing just means the dog is getting excited in the moving his head around this is a passive alert dog that gets a little bit excited. it's no different than what a neighbor's dog would do when you get to the front door. second with respect to the state law we think it's important and florida has the decision. >> it's not with the dog does according to the police officer's testimony he gave them a long leash so the dog would lead him to the drug is to read the dog did did i thought of what according to what i read past the motorcycle to make sure and the officer said this we

don't know if the drugs are in the motorcycle. you don't know if they are in the garage or where they might be so the dog is permitted to roam around until he catches. is that accurate? >> yes. you can see it from the picture it's near the front door where he alerted by sitting down. >> but the point is that he is sniffing all the way around. estimates with respect to state law state versus mormon for 08 and 409 this was a case that came up during the oral argument in the supreme court that says a under the florida law there is no reason the expectation of privacy taking into account that this can come up to the front door and i think that's pertinent here. justice kennedy, if you don't like the contraband rationale, then i hope he would consider the public rationale the public record does show the drug houses

to put a stop outside as page 48 of the joint appendix we talk about what the air conditioning unit does in the house. we know that they knew about that because the officer came across the mothballs on page in the appendix. they were outside of the house. ischemic you have to concede this is a case about police used in the technology, but with everyone to call that of something that enhances what normal people can sense and then the question becomes the have a reasonable expectation of privacy and basically people just having their normal census rather than some technique, the door technology that enhances those senses so they might differ fundamentally if the neighbor comes and knocks on your door with a neighbor who

brings his magnifying glass and everything else and start testing everything around you might say i'm not there for that. >> that gets back to the point this is a dog used on humans for centuries% and that is different than the helicopters used in florida versus riley. >> the case is submitted. >> on the same day the supreme court also heard argument in a similar case florida versus harris. the question here before the court is whether the drug dog signaled to its and were outside of a pickup truck during a traffic stop established probable cause to justify the media warrantless search of the truck. the court's decision on the cases will be released before the end of the term in june. this argument is just under an hour. estimate may i please the court.

the question is when the alert a vehicle established probable cause to search the vehicle are you for or against. >> the florida supreme court answered that question by directing what we think is an extraordinary sight with the requirements and puts the ball on trial in any hearing in which they use to challenge the reliability of the dog and fundamentally the problem of the court of appeals decision is that it misconceives of the cases conceive of the probable cause requirement. probable cause of this point is referred to as a substantial chance or failed probably of the detection of the evidence of a crime into what amounts to a continuously updated batting average and the requirement that the dog be virtually fellow. >> that goes to the view of

performance. but the other requirement is the training program test. i'm showing the handler, not only the dog has had training. it seems to me there is nothing improper about that. stila under the view that it's okay to inquire whether or not the doggett successfully ran the program in which the dog is tested for proficiency including where some vehicles have drugs and some vehicles don't and although the dog in this case received 120 hours of training and programming in the police department in florida and received a refreshing seminar by

another department in alabama suggested to the continuous weekly training in much a part of that training consisted of taking out marking on vehicles that contained cars and some vehicles that didn't and the testimony was that the performance was good and what he meant by that is. >> why didn't get the dog recertified? at time of the search it had expired. >> the dog was recertified and the fourth amendment doesn't impose manual certification requirements. some states have it, some states don't. more important is the fact that the dog was continuously trained. >> what do you have to show to establish if the dog was well-trained? >> i think the most important thing is successful completion of proficiency testing. with the florida supreme court

would like all aspects of the training and the types of destructors, what type of small printing. >> is certainly was authentic. here the programs were conducted by actual police departments and alabama and they ordinarily would pursue regularity and those sorts of training settings and there is no reason to approach the trend of the dog. >> the training facilities for private entities that contacted the police department. >> the certification usually is done by private entities that are operated by former law enforcement officers but the training itself was usually done by the police department. >> i go back to justice ginsburg's's question.

what i hear the court saying is there is no national standard for certification. yes. >> there is no national standard that defines the training, correct? >> that's right. >> what me just finish my question. so, assuming there is no national standard, then how do you expect a judge without asking questions and of the content of the certification process the content of the training process and what the results were and how they were measured how do you expect a judge to decide whether the certification and training are sufficiently adequate? >> it is to determine whether or not the dog was performing

successfully at the proficiency testing. after all that is why we train the dogs. estimate but you still have to ask what it was and the school still has to determine whether the judge believes. that is what the to tell the of circumstances require. spend your honor, we don't think it is inappropriate role for the court to tell them to the contours of the training and work and what specific networks were used to train or distract. >> so what does the judge do? just say the police department says i have to accept emphatically? >> you just have to accept it on its face. in a record like this, and i think this record is clear the efficient and that is what we are asking this court to hold. what we have on the record is -- >> i have no problem with this record. my problem is how do we rule? because it seems to me that i'm not quite understanding how the

legal bill that you are asking us to announce to it i think the legal rule that you are saying is if the dog has been tested for proficiency by a police department's determination of what is the proficiency, that establishes probable cause. that's what i think the rule is the you want us to do. i don't know the role of the judge is. >> we would ask whether or not the dog successfully treated and completed training by the benefit organization. >> no questioning of the handler and the handlers training. the judge can't do any of that and shouldn't do any of that. >> it isn't required. it may be one way that this department could establish reliability in a different way that the certification felt is not required and we have the record and the type of training we do have here. we could put a handle on the stand and ask about the

reliability. certain questions about reliability. we don't think on the record like this the judge would say to completed 128 was in the detection of the floor of the bill delete the placed apartment. >> it's not enough for you to win by us saying that it is to insist on performance in the field records that it has to look at what the of the circumstances. what have we announced under the to cover the under the circumstance case the absolute flat rule like the one you are proposing. what else have we said that one thing alone distinguishes probable cause and that factor alone? >> one way is where it took about the importance of the

rules for the police officers. i suppose that it's unreasonable pended upon some evidence given by a medical doctor. the court wouldn't go back and determine how well that dr. was trained at harvard medical school and what class's he took and so forth, right? >> absolutely. the same way that when an officer provides research for and we don't demand the training of the officer, what school they went to or what specific courses he had. >> you said the certification training program, you said otherwise it shows proficiency locating. there is no training so when the state establish they are reliable? >> that would be an unusual case and it probably would be

captured by the other factors but what we meant by and putting that is that there is no type of evidence that the police could submit to show their reliability. if you didn't have certifications or formal training program, the fact that there is evidence the job performed in the weekly training in the course of a year and the records like football the joint appendix in this case. that might be another way of establishing reliability but the central way we are issuing a completed training -- >> there's a fourth amendment requirement of certifications for handlers is something -- >> that candler has some training. >> we had a 160 hour course and we've done training and the

alabama police department we had worked together for about a year before the time of the search. the handlers themselves have opposition in the reliability and the other stores to ensure that they are reliable. that's good because they don't want to miss the contraband when it's available in the field and also the don't want it in harm's way. the traffic stop is one of the most dangerous encounters the police officers face. we aren't going to be working with the dog that is consistently putting the officer in the position of searching cars based on the work when the dog is not reliable and predicting -- >> i am somewhat troubled by all of the studies that have been presented to the court particularly the australian one we're under the control one dog alerted correctly only 12% of

the time. hal and when and who determines when a dog's reliability has reached a critical failure number? what is -- what do you suggest that number is and how does a judge determined that it's being monitored. >> it's rejected in the -- >> i am troubled by a doll that alerts only 12% of the time. whether we have a fixed number or on fixed number, that seems like less probably. it's been a glut the address the study that i think is the one that he were referring to and that is on the other side in the case over the course of several years the dog's alert and discovery of jugs a percentage of the time that is another part of the study that doesn't come up in the amicus brief and that

this would 60% of the other cases the individual admitted to using drugs. if you include that in the universal efforts. the dogs are accurately reporting. that is 70% based on the primary study that they relied upon. >> that is insubstantial what happens to the dogs. dogs grow old. they're taken out of service for a reason. so, how is the course of post to monitor whether or not a dog has fallen out? >> by looking at whether the dog is interested and determined. they do have a lot of service and reach a certain age, dogs become old and appeared over time but looking at the weekly training records like they are available in this case they've performed in and week out training their success. after all the most problematic aspect of the challenges of

reliability is that law enforcement agencies across the stage, wall in for some agencies around the world and law enforcement agencies that protect the court rely on detection dogs as reliable predictors of the evidence of contraband and likewise this is an area where we think the future of logic and experienced in history is with a volume of logic. these dogs have been and are being used in many studies across the country and around the world today and the reason is because the people that work with them know that they are reliable and they know by experience they are reliable and that is the central problem we have with the argument on the other side is that ultimately this court should just trust the reliability of the dogs. >> to understand though your arguments? because suppose it a case the government comes in and says the

stock has been through training and the handler has been through training and this is a case in which this is never going to come up when the ball good legal limits to narcotics it's not worth anybody's time of the point it's only going to come up in a case like this where a bold alerts narcotics and there are no dmarko backstedt something else is found and so the person ends up being criminally prosecuted so a small universe of cases. so the government comes in and says the dog has been trained. can the criminal defendant at that point call handler and say how has it all been trained and what is the message the dog was using and how did the dog do in training? can the defendant do that? >> the defendant can call handler and ask questions. did they use that reward met in training or what this specific?

how did the court during training. there was an article that said there was a certain kind of method that for example lead to a lot of subconscious by vannevar could the criminal defendant say did you use that method that needs to be used but problematic result? >> i don't think so. because they have an argument the dog was just sort of inherently relied upon. >> any intention maliki but one thing that i learned in reading all of this is the one difficulty here is the response in the subconscious queues and the different ways of training that make that less or more of a problem. >> you can inquire during this hearing of the defendants can argue the dog was queued and the course of the argument that's

different than the challenge to was made here. i would like to go back to one of the promises of the question is that all the didn't accurately alert. the dog in this case -- >> i just meant to say that there were no drugs found. a cynic the other problem with a decision is this notion. it's just as accurate as the alert to the presence and the methamphetamine itself in the car remaining in my time. thank you. >> this court has recognized the a devotee of the dogs to reliably detect odors and such dogs every day perform critical

life and death -- >> to separate questions trying the earlier case a little bit to this one. i am assuming that your position is -- you will tell me what the legal standard is a well-trained dog if they alert the department houses and alert to drugs that simple alert is probable cause for the police to get a search warrant. >> we believe by a trained dog is sufficient to us, which probable cause. >> so without any other information about unlike the earlier case or this one where the police officers of the individual nervous etc., etc., all it takes despite the fact there is no study that says the dogs reliably alert 100% of the

time. >> 100% of the time is not required -- the standard and certainty is not required and that was the principal and fundamental flaw in the florida supreme court. it demanded infallibility where infil the devotee is not required. in terms of the studies -- >> so shouldn't we be addressing the question? whether an alert especially in the home in particular should be standing by itself? >> i think what the court relied on as important. the question is how you determine reliability. this is a somewhat unique setting where the law enforcement tool is tested initially in on an ongoing basis and that controlled setting to establish its reliability. you ask what the standard for bonafide training is. we think the important point is the outcome of the training is

the dog proficient, can the dog reliably detect and a controlled setting for the false positives and false negatives can accurately be measured that record is established. spec only because the officer said that he satisfactorily performed but the court said we don't know what that means. >> i think we do know what it means. there are two different showings that are made. there's a formal training and certification vote for the dog and the handler separately in the training together but then just as important, you have ongoing but less formal proficiency exercises conducted by the handler and which the dog and the controlled setting where they are reliably identified performed quite strongly including two days before the arrest here said that on june june 22nd the dhaka performed perfectly in a controlled setting and we have the record in this case going back several

months before and several months after the arrest showing that this dog passed the test. >> and you agree that is an appropriate area of input. >> although you went to the school and was certified when was it last tested? >> the judge can ask those kind of questions. >> the only thing they can't ask about is what is the record? >> there is a question with a couple issues here. it is an inflexible set of obligations that are a part of the government they always have to introduce any time it seeks to establish probable cause. we think that is fundamental for a variety of reasons. the question of what our fair game questions for the defendant to ask once the candler is on

the stand is a different question. >> they do this thousands of times and in thousands of cases they ask was it reliable, were there any number? it is a question of whether one of the trial judge made a correct determination in determining there was or was not sufficient cause. it just happens every day. as the medical aspect in this context is the performance in a controlled setting. >> the florida supreme court is declaring evidence in the performance and assuming that evidence is not required is the defendant in preparing for the motion. would it be proper to seek for

the defendant would it be permissible for the defendant to speak, to seek discovery would ever field performance records there are. >> we don't think as a routine basis the kind of burden that might impose on wall enforcement we don't think is justified. that is a separate question from whether the defendant can ask the handle were on the stand about the performance and then the court can give that answer in whatever way is appropriate. we think typically in answer is not going to be material, is not going to be helpful. the problem is in the field when the dog is trained to alert to the odor of drugs. it's like the florida supreme court on the batting average. the batting average that would be calculated with a number but we don't know in many cases where there was a hit pulling out the denominator but not the numerator.

the answer to the question and concern about reliability is to go back to the controlled setting where we know what's ahead and we can calculate a reliable batting average. that needs to be where the focus should be in determining the reliability of the dog and there is no reason to constitutionalize the process or the training methodology is that get you to that point. what matters is is this dog successful in a setting in which we can measure success. >> it's also important to point out before the court was basically alone in the establishment of these unprecedented evin and jiri requirements. there is a large body of the case law in the lower courts on the reliability of the drug detection going back 30 or 40 years and there are no other courts, no other appellate courts to be sure that have imposed these kind of requirements on the law enforcement that seeks to establish probable cause for the

detection alerts. >> if you seek out the court in this one trial court in massachusetts, basically you think what the courts have been doing is the right thing. >> in general there is some diversity across the court but i think if you look at the opinion in the case from the tenth circuit, you see the approaches the basically sound where the courts have confidence that if the law enforcement comes in and says the stock is trained and demonstrated proficiency that the dog is generally reliable. >> at the same time to allow the defendant to question the hand over about the training, about how the dog has performed in that training. is that right? >> yes. those questions can be asked but it's critical as it was pointed out that the court not constitutional is the methodology with many trials with expert witnesses on what makes a more successful dog training program because the government has critical

interest, life-and-death interests that it states on the reliability of these dogs said the u.s. marshals use the dogs to protect federal judges to keep them out of the federal buildings and the tsa uses them to keep them off of airplanes. fema uses them to find survivors after hurricanes. there are some in new york and in jersey looking for survivors and hurricanes and the. situation after situation the government has put the money where its mouth is and the institutional level they are quite reliable. estimate i'm not sure it's relevant, but does their ability -- if you have a dog that is good at finding her when the same dog will be good at detecting a bomb or is there a difference? >> i think any dog could be trained in either discipline. and if you look at the scientific working group on the detection they would site in a brief but report explains the

same general methodology and the same general approach used to train each kind of dog but typically they will not be crosstree no explosives. stopguard a good at sniffing things or can they be good at bombs but not good at math? >> i don't know a specific answer to that. once the dog choose is a major that with a stick with. [laughter] >> but the important thing. >> a dog chasing a squirrel. >> the important thing is the dogs have to meet and have to pass proficiency and initial training programs and then as it is shown in the record here in great detail the issue proficiency on an ongoing basis including two days before the arrest. >> thank you, counsel.

>> mr. chief justice may i please the court. there is no exception to the to tell the of the circumstances for the probable cause to conduct warrantless search. if that is true their must be in the fact that bares on a dog's reliability as a detector of the presence of drugs comes within the purview of the court. this evidence of initial training, certification, maintenance training and performance in the field. >> do you understand the government disagrees with that? if you have an attorney that is really concerned about the training they can ask about. >> i do understand the government about the relevance of the performance. and what i specifically think the government disagrees with is on the level of the detail that can be inquired into by the trial court on any of these elements. >> i didn't think they would disagree on what you may do. he disagrees on what he must. that is the florida supreme court says you must and they gave a whole list.

that is with the case is about. >> the florida supreme court did have several passages in its opinion where it talked about what the state must produce, and at first glance what i think the florida supreme court was saying is that if these records exist, the state must produce them and that is consistent with the burden of proof to justify. >> that is different. the courts as the trial judge is likely to know what is relevant in different circumstances and different matters will be and he has the first say of what to go into. what in the constitution requires that? >> i don't believe the constitution requires it. >> even though they use the word must, i think it is performance

records and training records that exist. further down in the opinion the court says reasons why the state should keep. >> the state doesn't keep any performance records we know is performance to show. is that what you think? the state doesn't keep performance records. performance records are required. >> of the state doesn't keep the performance records that is a lack of evidence that could be held against the state in the suppression hearing and shift the focus on providing evidence of the initial training certification and maintenance training that shows the trial court this is a reliable dog. >> i thought the for the court was saying is if you didn't

produce it, the dogs evidence wouldn't be allowed. >> the court did use the word must but it's not a specific recipe that can't be deviated from because in addition to listing the records that must be produced, the florida supreme court also said and all other evidence that bares on the reliability of the dog. it's not a specific recipe and it's talking about what if these records exist. >> are you saying the florida supreme court with respect to the florida supreme court records is now fourth amendment requirement? >> i don't think they require the performance records. >> but the outline of the government must do a and that was one of them. >> the set with the government

must produce if those records exist but when you go down to the part of the opinion or the court applies the law and the fact the court didn't just say because there were no performance records, no probable cause conviction reversed with the court did is take into consideration the lack of performance records, the lack of any record about the initial training and certification aside from the fact they have a certificate and we have to remember this certificate not only was a 16 months out of date it wasn't a certificate for all it was a certificate for aldo as a team. this dog was never certified and the certifications in this area our team certifications, not individuals. estimate is that the requirement? the training doesn't count unless it is training with the officer that is using it? >> that is an indicator of

reliability which is the ultimate test. >> can the council bring that up? the council can bring that up at the hearing before the judge. i understood this to be a requirement. you never even get to that hearing because there is no evidence the stalled was ever trained with this policeman. >> that's correct there is no such evidence. >> therefore in that case, right? >> no, not in the case. the fact the dog wasn't trend with this police man needs to be the command you to look for other evidence of reliability which also doesn't exist in this case. >> this officer has been working with this dog for many on -- many months. the training every week. so why isn't that enough to show that this handler and this dog effectively a team?

>> first this weekly training as maintenance training to maintain the dog at a level of proficiency that has previously been established. that level of proficiency hadn't been established with this team aldo and another seminal county deputy. >> what are the incentives here? why what the police department want to use an incompetent dog? is that any more likely than a medical school would want to certify and incompetent doctor? what incentive? >> to acquire probable cause when it wouldn't otherwise be available. >> and that's a good thing? probable cause you go in and there's nothing there. you've wasted the time of your police officers and a lot of time. >> and you invaded the privacy of someone who's innocent. >> maybe the police department doesn't care about that but it

certainly cares about wasting the time of its police officers. >> the incentive of the officer to be allowed to conduct a search when he doesn't otherwise have probable cause is a powerful incentive. as the court said it is a competitive enterprise and also -- >> these officers just like to search. they don't particularly like to search where they want to find something they just like to search. let's get dogs that, you know, small drugs where there are no drugs. do you really think that is what is going on? >> officers like to search so they can get probable cause and advance their career. for venture is also an issue. >> they like to search where they're likely to find something and that only exists on the dog is well trained. it seems to me they have every incentive to train the dog well. >> the question goes back to the dogs reliability and with the officer knows objectively and with that officer can demonstrate on the stands in the trial court to